Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
`11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
`Phoenix, Arizona 85028-6037
`(602) 254-6071
`
`Richard P. Traulsen State Bar #016050
`rtraulsen@BMT-law.com
`Local Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`Douglas Haegg, individually and on
`Case No.:
`behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Magellan Health, Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
`DEMAND
`
`his
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, DOUGLAS HAEGG PLAINTIFF
`undersigned attorneys, and hereby brings this Collective and Class Action Complaint
`against Defendant, MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC.,
`:
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself
`1.
`and all similarly situated current and/or former Customer Service Representative
`
`350, et seq., and A.R.S. §§ 23-
`obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules,
`regulations, statutes, and ordinances.
`2.
`
`zes that call center jobs, like
`
`-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`-
`preliminary and postliminary activities. See DOL Fact Sheet #64, attached hereto as
`Exhibit A at 2
`agents/specialists/representatives working in call centers includes starting the computer to
`download work instructions,
`computer
`applications
`and work-
`
`Id.
`
`including time spent in pre-shift and post-shift job-
`3.
`policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary
`boot-up and boot-down time, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as
`required under applicable federal and state laws.
`4.
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights, the rights of the FLSA Collective
`Class, and the rights of the Rule 23 Classes were violated and seek to recover an award of
`unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and
`- and post-judgment interest, and any other
`
`remedies to which they may be entitled.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Pla
`
`5.
`
`§§ 201, et seq.
`6.
`This Court has subject-
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which provides that suits un
`maintained against any employer .
`.
`. in any Federal or State court of competent
`
`7.
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arise from a common set of operative
`
`a part of the same case or controversy.
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`8.
`they have more than two employees, so the FLSA applies in this case on an enterprise
`basis. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
`9.
`including, but not limited to utilizing telephone lines and Internet
`commerce
`therefore, they are also covered by the FLSA on an individual basis.
`10.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it maintains
`offices in the State of Arizona.
`11.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`Defendant conducts substantial business within this District, and because a substantial
`portion of the events that give rise to the claims pled in this Complaint occurred in this
`District.
`
`and
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the County of Yavapai, City of
`12.
`Prescott, Arizona. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Customer Service Representative
`from September 2018 to September 2019. Plaintiff executed his Consent to Sue form,
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`13.
`Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`Arizona.
`Defendant operates customer service call center locations in Arizona,
`14.
`California, District of Columbia, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
`15.
`Defendant is a managed healthcare company that provides customer service
`to health plans and healthcare providers.
`16.
`Defendant may accept service via its registered agent Corporation Service
`Company, 8825 N 23rd Avenue, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
`\\
`\\
`\\
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly call center Customer Service
`
`17.
`
`job duties included answering calls from Defendant
`18.
`clients, which included healthcare providers and patients, regarding insurance pre-
`authorizations for medications, tests, or health services.
`19.
`worked at least 40 hours per workweek.
`20.
`Regardless of whether Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek
`totaling under 40 hours, scheduled to work a workweek totaling 40 hours, or scheduled to
`work a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial
`amount of time off-the-clock as part of his job duties as a CSR. Defendant never
`compensated Plaintiff for this time worked off-the-clock.
`21.
`29 C.F.R. § 553.221 provides:
`Compensable hours of work generally include all of the time during which
`an employee is on duty
`workplace, as well as all other time during which the employee is suffered or
`permitted to work for the employer. Such time includes all pre-shift and post-
`shift activities which are an integral part of the emp
`or which are closely related to the performance of the principal activity, such
`as attending roll call, writing up and completing tickets or reports, and
`washing and re-racking fire hoses.
`22.
`ties included as an integral part of a
`principal activity are those closely related activities which are indispensable to its
`
`Off-the-Clock Boot-Up Work.
`
`A.
`23.
`clients by use
`
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`24.
`CSRs, must boot up their computers and log in to the various computer programs, servers,
`
`their scheduled shift start time. This boot-up process regularly takes 15 minutes per shift,
`or more if technical issues arise. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for this time.
`25.
`Regardless of how long the boot-up and login process takes, Defendant did
`not allow Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former CSRs, to clock in until after they
`completed the boot-up and login process.
`26.
`The boot-up procedure Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former CSRs,
`must complete before they begin being compensated is the same regardless of which call
`center location they worked at. The boot-up and login procedure is integral and
`
`Thus, the unpaid, off-the-clock work performed by Plaintiff, and all other
`27.
`current and/or former CSRs, directly benefits Defendant.
`B. Off-the-Clock Boot-Down Work.
`28.
`Defendant required Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former hourly
`CSRs, to first clock out of the timekeeping system, then spend time logging out of the
`necessary programs, servers, and applications, and restarting their computer off-the-clock.
`This boot-down process regularly takes 10 minutes per shift.
`29.
`This off-the-clock boot-down work performed by Plaintiff, and all other
`current and/or former hourly CSRs, was integral and indispensable to the primary job
`nefited Defendant.
`-the-Clock Work Violates Federal
`
`and State Laws.
`At all times relevant, Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff, and all other
`30.
`current and/or former CSRs, to routinely perform off-the-clock work by not compensating
`its employees for the boot-up and login procedure and the boot-down and logout procedure.
`
`C.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that it must pay its employees for all
`31.
`compensable time throughout the workweek. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.221, 790.8, 785.19(a).
`32.
`Despite this, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all other current
`and/or former CSRs, for their off-the-clock, compensable work performed in any amount.
`33.
`Defendant knew, or should have known, that the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207,
`requires Defendant to compensate non-exempt employees who work in excess of 40 hours
`in a workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
`including the
`compensable, off-the-clock work performed.
`34.
`Despite this, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all other current
`and/or former CSRs, for their off-the-clock, compensable work performed in excess of 40
`hours in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.
`35.
`Defendant knew or should have known that Arizona wage and hour laws
`require an employer to pay employees wages for each hour worked. See A.R.S. § 23-351.
`36.
`Despite this, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all other current
`Arizona for
`their off-the-clock, compensable work performed in workweeks totaling less than 40 hours
`and in workweeks totaling in excess of 40 hours at the proper legal rates, including
`overtime premiums.
`37.
`Defendant knew or should have known that Arizona wage and hour laws
`require an employer to promptly pay employees for their earned wages. See A.R.S. §§ 23-
`351 and 23-353.
`38.
`In reckless disregard of the FLSA and Arizona wage and hour laws,
`Defendant adopted and then adhered to its policy, plan, or practice of employing Plaintiff,
`and all other current and/or former CRSs, to perform compensable work off-the-clock. This
`illegal policy, plan, or practice caused incorrect payments for all straight time and overtime
`performed by Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former CSRs, in violation of the FLSA
`and Arizona wage and hour laws.
`\\
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`Recordkeeping.
`D.
`The Arizona wage and hour laws require that
`39.
`payroll records showing the hours worked for each day worked, and the wages and earned
`See A.R.S. § 23-364.
`
`40.
`
`Further, 29 C.F.R § 51
`
`Federal regulations mandate each employer to maintain and preserve payroll
`41.
`or other records containing, without limitation, the total hours worked by each employee
`each workday and the total hours worked by each employee each workweek. See 29 C.F.R
`§ 516.2.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to establish, maintain, and
`42.
`preserve accurate timesheet and payroll records for all hours worked by Plaintiff as
`required by the FLSA and Arizona wage and hour laws.
`43. When the employer fails to keep accurate records of the hours worked by its
`employees, the rule in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 88 (1946)
`controls. That rule states:
`
`has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for
`which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence
`to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable
`inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with
`evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to
`negative the reasonableness of the inference t
`evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then
`award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.
`44.
`The Supreme Court set forth this test to avoid placing a premium on an
`
`em
`
`compensation as required by the FLSA. Where damages are awarded pursuant to this test,
`
`precision of measurement that would be possible had he kept records in accordance with .
`Id.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
`45.
`individually and on behalf of:
`All current and former Customer Service Representative employees, and/or
`other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked for
`Magellan Health, Inc., at any time in the last three years.
`
`definition as necessary.
`46.
`Plaintiff does not bring this action on behalf of any executive, administrative,
`or professional employees exempt from coverage under the FLSA.
`47.
`With respect to the claims set forth in this action, a collective action under the FLSA is
`appropriate because, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the call center employees described are
`laintiff brings
`this collective action are similarly situated because (a) they have been or are employed in
`the same or similar positions; (b) they were or are subject to the same or similar unlawful
`ces, policies, or plan of not paying
`their CSR employees for their compensable boot-up and boot-down work performed in
`excess of 40 hours per workweek at an overtime premium of at least one and one-half times
`their regular rates of pay); (c) their claims are based upon the same legal theories; and (d)
`the employment relationship between Defendant and every putative FLSA Collective
`member is exactly the same, and differs only by name, location, and rate of pay.
`48.
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff estimates the FLSA Collective,
`including both current and former call center employees over the relevant period, will
`include several hundred members who would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised
`notice of this action and the opportunity to join it. The precise number of the FLSA
`
`scheduling, time, and payroll records; and from input received from the FLSA Collective
`-
`vided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`Plaintiff shares the same interests as the FLSA Collective members in that
`49.
`the outcome of this action will determine whether they are entitled to unpaid overtime
`FLSA. Because the facts
`in this case are similar, if not altogether identical, and the factual assessment and legal
`standards lend themselves to a collective action.
`THE ARIZONA WAGE AND HOUR LAW CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`50.
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of a
`putative Class defined to include:
`All current and former Customer Service Representative employees in
`Arizona, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties,
`who worked for Magellan Health, Inc., at any time in the last one year.
`Arizona
`
`definition as necessary.
`51.
`Numerosity: The members of the Arizona Class are so numerous that joinder
`of all members in the case would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a
`Class will benefit the parties and the Court. The precise number of Class members should
`
`Commonality/Predominance: There is a well-defined community of interest
`52.
`among Arizona Class members and common questions of both law and fact predominate
`in the action over any questions affecting individual members. These common legal and
`factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`a.
`Whether Defendant violated A.R.S. §§ 23-350 et seq. by failing to pay
`current and former employees for all wages earned;
`The proper measure of damages sustained by the proposed Arizona
`Class; and
`Whether Defendant violated A.R.S. § 23-364 by failing to make, keep,
`and preserve true and accurate payroll records.
`53.
`Arizona Class in that
`Typicality:
`Plaintiff and all other members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`all other Arizona
`
`other Arizona Class members: whether all Arizona Class members were employed by
`Defendant on an hourly basis without receiving compensation for all wages earned.
`54.
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of the
`Arizona Class and Plaintiff retained national counsel who are qualified and experienced in
`the prosecution of nationwide wage-and-hour class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his
`counsel have interests that are contrary to, or conflicting with, the interests of the Arizona
`Class.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
`55.
`and efficient adjudication of the controversy, because, inter alia, it is economically
`infeasible for Arizona Class members to prosecute individual actions of their own given
`the relatively small amount of damages at stake for each individual along with the fear of
`reprisal by their employer. Given the material similarity of the Arizona
`claims, even if each Class member could afford to litigate a separate claim, this Court
`should not countenance or require the filing of hundreds, or thousands, of identical actions.
`
`cause unavoidable delay, a significant duplication of efforts, and an extreme waste of
`resources. Alternatively, proceeding by way of a class action would permit the efficient
`supervision of the putative Arizona Class claims, create significant economies of scale for
`the Court and the parties, and result in a binding, uniform adjudication on all issues.
`56.
`The case will be manageable as a class action. This class action can be
`efficiently and effectively managed by sending the same FLSA opt-in notice to all
`employees similarly situated and adding for the Arizona Class within that group a separate
`opt-out notice pertaining to their rights under the Arizona state law. Plaintiff and his
`counsel know of no unusual difficulties in the case and Defendant has payroll systems that
`will allow the class, wage, and damages issues in the case to be resolved with relative ease.
`Because the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative (c)(4), are satisfied in the case,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`class certification is appropriate. Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`ts terms [Rule 23] creates a categorical rule entitling a
`
`BREACH OF CONTRACT CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS1
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of a
`57.
`putative Class defined to include:
`All current and former Customer Service Representative employees, and/or
`other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked for
`Magellan Health, Inc., at any time in the last six years.
`
`( t
`
`his definition as necessary.
`58.
`Numerosity: The members of the Nationwide Class are so numerous that
`joinder of all members in the case would be impracticable, and the disposition of their
`claims as a Class will benefit the parties and the Court. The precise number of Class
`
`records.
`Commonality/Predominance: There is a well-defined community of interest
`59.
`among Nationwide Class members and common questions of both law and fact
`predominate in the action over any questions affecting individual members. These common
`legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`a.
`Whether Defendant offered to pay Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class
`certain rates (depending on the technical job titles) per hour for each
`hour worked as call center employees;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`offer by performing the essential functions of the job;
`Whether Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay Plaintiff
`and the Nationwide Class for each and every hour worked; and
`Whether Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class were damaged.
`
`1 To the extent the Court finds, or Defendant argues, the employment relationship between itself
`and its CSRs did not form a contract, Plaintiff reserves the right to seek Rule 23 class certification
`under Plaintiff
`and the Nationwide
`-contract claims (Count IV).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`60.
`Typicality:
`that Plaintiff and all other members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of
`
`from Defe
`
`as all other Nationwide Class members: whether Defendant and the Nationwide Class
`members were employed under an implied contract to be paid for each and every hour
`worked by Defendant.
`61.
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of the
`Nationwide Class and Plaintiff retained national counsel who are qualified and experienced
`in the prosecution of nationwide wage-and-hour class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his
`counsel have interests that are contrary to, or conflicting with, the interests of the
`Nationwide Class.
`62.
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
`and efficient adjudication of the controversy, because, inter alia, it is economically
`infeasible for Nationwide Class members to prosecute individual actions of their own given
`the relatively small amount of damages at stake for each individual along with the fear of
`
`claims, even if each Nationwide Class member could afford to litigate a separate claim,
`this Court should not countenance or require the filing of thousands of identical actions.
`
`cause unavoidable delay, a significant duplication of efforts, and an extreme waste of
`resources. Alternatively, proceeding by way of a class action would permit the efficient
`
`for the Court and the parties, and result in a binding, uniform adjudication on all issues.
`63.
`The case will be manageable as a class action. This class action can be
`efficiently and effectively managed by sending the same FLSA opt-in notice to all
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`employees similarly situated and adding for the Nationwide Class within that group a
`separate opt-out notice pertaining to their rights under the common law. Plaintiff and his
`counsel know of no unusual difficulties in the case and Defendant has payroll systems that
`will allow the class, wage, and damages issues in the case to be resolved with relative ease.
`Because the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative (c)(4), are satisfied in the case,
`class certification is appropriate. Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`al rule entitling a
`
`COUNT I
`VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
`U.S.C. § 201, et seq., FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
`(FLSA Collective Class)
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.
`
`64.
`65.
`FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), subject to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.
`66.
`Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods
`for commerce, as defined by the FLSA.
`67.
`within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
`68.
`Plaintiff either (1) engaged in commerce; or (2) engaged in the production of
`goods for commerce; or (3) was employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
`production of goods for commerce.
`69.
`The position of Customer Service Representative is not exempt from the
`
`FLSA.
`
`70.
`ob titles performing similar
`representative job duties are not exempt from the FLSA.
`71.
`
`customer
`
`service
`
`him within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §
`
`203(g).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`The FLSA requires an employer to pay employees the federally mandated
`72.
`overtime premium rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for every hour
`worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207.
`73.
`Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff the federally
`mandated overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
`74.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has corporate policies of evading
`overtime pay for its hourly workers.
`75.
`ations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.
`76.
`By failing to compensate its hourly workers at a rate not less than one and
`one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
`workweek, Defendant violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C.
`§§ 207(a)(1) and 215(a). All similarly situated CSRs, or other job titles performing the
`same or similar job duties, are victims of a uniform and company-wide enterprise which
`operates to compensate employees at a rate less than the federally mandated overtime wage
`rate. This uniform policy, in violation of the FLSA, has been, and continues to be, applied
`to CSRs, or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who have worked or
`are working for Defendant in the same or similar position as Plaintiff.
`77.
`None of the provisions of the FLSA can be contravened, set aside, abrogated,
`or waived by Plaintiff or the Class.
`78.
`The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), provides that as a remedy for a violation of
`the Act, an employee is entitled to his or her unpaid overtime wages plus an additional
`
`COUNT II
`VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONA WAGE ACT
`(Arizona Class)
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Arizona Class, re-alleges
`79.
`and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Arizona Class are current and former employees
`80.
`of Defendant within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-350(2).
`81.
`Defendant at all relevant times was an employer within the meaning of
`A.R.S. § 23-350(3).
`82.
`Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and the Arizona Class for all hours
`worked.
`A.R.S. § 23-
`83.
`period, including overtime pay.
`84.
`A.R.S. § 23-353 provides that when an employer discharges an employee or
`employee quits, the employer must pay the employee all wages due in a timely manner.
`85.
`return for labor or services rendered by an employee for which the employee has a
`reasonable expectation to be paid whether determined by a time, task, piece, commission
`-350(7).
`Defendant, pursuant to its policies and illegal timekeeping practices, refused
`86.
`and failed to pay Plaintiff and the Arizona Class for all hours worked.
`87.
`By failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Arizona Class for all
`
`reasonable expectation of being paid, Defendant violated, and continues to violate its
`-351 and 23-353.
`
`88.
`A.R.S. §§ 23-352(3), 23-355.
`nlawful conduct, Plaintiff
`89.
`and the proposed Arizona Class have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at
`trial.
`
`See
`
`Plaintiff and the proposed Arizona Class seek damages in the amount of their
`90.
`unpaid straight-time and overtime wages for all hours worked, treble damages, reasonable
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`- and post- judgment interest, and such other
`legal and equitable relief as the Court deems proper.
`COUNT III
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`(National Breach of Contract Class Action)
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class re-allege and incorporate all previous
`91.
`paragraphs herein and further allege as follows.
`92.
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class were hired at various times. Defendant
`offered to pay Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class certain rates per hour for each hour
`
`paystubs and other records that Defendant prepares as part of its regular business activities.
`93.
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class accepted the offer and worked for
`Defendant as CSR, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties.
`94.
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class also accepted the offer by their
`i.e., reporting for work and completing the tasks assigned to them.
`performance
`95.
`boot-down time.
`96.
`Plaintiff and every other Nationwide Class member performed under their
`contract by doing their jobs in addition to carrying out the off-the-clock duties Defendant
`required.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant does not compensate its CSRs,
`97.
`and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, until after the boot-up and
`login procedures are complete.
`98.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant stops compensating its CSRs, and/or
`other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, before the boot-down and logout
`procedures are complete.
`
`-up and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`Despite being required to complete these integral job duties, Plaintiff and the
`99.
`Nationwide Class were not compensated at their hourly rate for their work performed.
`100. By failing to pay Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class for the boot-up and boot-
`down time Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class to pay
`their hourly rate for each hour worked.
`101. Defendant also breached its duty to keep accurate records to keep track of
`the time Plaintiff and other Nationwide Class members spent doing boot-up and boot-down
`
`In sum, the facts set forth above establish the following elements and terms
`102.
`of the contract:
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Offer: a set hourly rate for each hour worked as a CSR;
`Acceptance: Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class accepted the offer
`overtly or via performance (i.e., each showed up to work and
`completed the tasks assigned to them by Defendant);
`Breach: Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class for
`each hour (or part thereof) worked; and
`Damages: By failing to pay Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class their
`hourly rate for each hour worked, Plaintiff and the Class were
`damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`103. These claims are appropriate for nationwide class certification under Rules
`23(b)(3) and/or (c)(4) because the law of contracts is substantially similar throughout the
`United States.
`104.
`Nationwide Class were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`COUNT IV
`QUASI-CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`(National Unjust Enrichment Class)
`105. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class re-allege and incorporate all previous
`paragraphs herein and further allege as follows.
`106.
`
`-up and boot-down time which is integral and indispensable to their
`
`17
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`principal activities as a CSR provided valuable work and income for Defendant; namely,
`compensation to Defendant for completing customer service activities that directly
`benefited Defendant.
`107. Boot-up Time: Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class were unable to perform
`any job function without booting up and logging in to their computers and required
`programs. In short, in order to start their work of fielding customer calls precisely at their
`designated start time, Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class worked off-the-clock before their
`shift began. Without the boot-up time, Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class were unable to
`take customer calls at their designated start time. Further, upon information and belief,
`Defendant does not compensate its CSRs until after the boot-up procedures are complete.
`108. Boot-down Time: Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class could not leave the call
`center until they logged out of all programs and restarted their computers after they
`clocked-out. Without the boot-down time, Plaintiff and the Nationwide class were unable
`to prepare for their next shift. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not compensate
`its CSRs for the boot-down procedure.
`109. As part of their ongoing employment relationships with Defendant, Plaintiff
`and other Nationwide Class members expected to be paid wages for the time they spent
`doing their jobs,
`including performance of the necessary boot-up and boot-down
`procedures performed each shift.
`110. By not paying Plaintiff and other Nationwide Class members for the time
`they spent performing necessary boot-up and boot-down activities, Defendant was, and
`continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class in
`an amount to be determined at trial.
`111. By not paying Plaintiff and other Nationwide Class members for the time
`they spent performing necessary activities, Defendant also saved, and continues to save,
`itself hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in unpaid payroll taxes
`taxes that would have
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00061-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/12/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`It would be unjust and inequitable to allow Defendant to retain the benefit of
`112.
`the work performed by Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class without compensation.
`113. These claims are appropriate for nationwide class certification under Rules
`23(b)(3