`
`
`
`
`Michael A. Velthoen (SBN 187909)
`Leslie A. McAdam (SBN 210067)
`Max R. Engelhardt (SBN 310968)
`FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP
`1050 S. Kimball Road
`Ventura, California 93004
`Telephone: (805) 659-6800
`Facsimile: (805) 659-6818
`Email: mvelthoen@fcoplaw.com
`lmcadam@fcoplaw.com
`mengelhardt@fcoplaw.com
`
`Michael A. Strauss (SBN 246718)
`Aris E. Karakalos (SBN 240802)
`STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
`226 W. Ojai Ave. #101-325
`Ojai, CA 93023
`Telephone: (805) 641-6600
`Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
`Email: mike@strausslawyers.com
`aris@strausslawyers.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES LEE
`FREEZE and GARY PFLASTER, on
`behalf of themselves and a class of
`employees and/or former employees
`similarly situated,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`JAMES LEE FREEZE, on behalf of
`himself and a class of employees
`and/or former employees similarly
`situated GARY PFLASTER, on
`behalf of himself and a class of
`employees and/or former employees
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` Case No.
`
` CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` DEMAND FOR JURY
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`v.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs JAMES LEE FREEZE and GARY PFLASTER, on behalf of
`
`themselves and a class of employees and/or former employees similarly situated
`
`(“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, bring claims pursuant to the Texas Labor
`
`Code and
`
`the California Labor Code against Defendant CHARTER
`
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and alleges, upon personal
`
`10
`
`belief as to himself and his own acts, and as for all other matters, upon information
`
`11
`
`and belief, and based upon the investigation made by his counsel, as follows:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(a)
`
`14
`
`because the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and Plaintiffs are citizens of a
`
`15
`
`state different from the states in which the Defendant is a citizen.
`
`16
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c) because
`
`17
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California.
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Charter Communications, LLC (“Charter”) is a limited
`
`PARTIES
`
`20
`
`liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Charter’s
`
`21
`
`principal place of business is at 12405 Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, St. Louis County,
`
`22
`
`Missouri 63131.
`
`23
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff JAMES LEE FREEZE (“Plaintiff Freeze”) is a natural person
`
`24
`
`and resident of Texas. Plaintiff Freeze was employed by Charter as full-time, non-
`
`25
`
`exempt employee during the applicable statutory period. Plaintiff is not subject to
`
`26
`
`Charter’s “Solution Channel” arbitration program. Plaintiff brings this action under
`
`27
`
`the Texas Labor Code on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`who currently work, or who worked for Charter as Maintenance Technicians
`
`(“Maintenance Techs”) in Texas during the applicable statutory period.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff GARY PFLASTER (“Plaintiff Pflaster”) is a natural person and
`
`resident of California. Plaintiff Pfalster was employed by Charter as full-time, non-
`
`exempt employee during the applicable statutory period. Plaintiff Pflaster is not
`
`subject to Charter’s “Solution Channel” arbitration program. Plaintiff Pflaster brings
`
`this action under the California Labor Code on behalf of himself and all other similarly
`
`situated employees who currently work, or who worked for Charter as Maintenance
`
`Maintenance Techs in California during the applicable statutory period.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`Charter is telecommunications and mass media company that provides
`
`12
`
`cable, internet, and communications products and services throughout the United
`
`13
`
`States.
`
`14
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members worked in Texas and California for
`
`15
`
`Charter as Maintenance Techs during the applicable statute of limitations period.
`
`16
`
`Among other duties, Maintenance Techs are responsible for responding to emergency
`
`17
`
`outages in Charter’s cable, internet, and communication services infrastructure. The
`
`
`
`18
`
`stakes of the job are high as a single outage may affect tens of thousands of Charter’s
`
`19
`
`customers. Response time to these emergencies is a critical aspect of a Maintenance
`
`20
`
`Tech’s duties.
`
`21
`
`8.
`
`As Maintenance Techs, Plaintiffs and the class members were subjected
`
`22
`
`to Charter’s written “on-call” corporate policy (the “On-Call Policy”). The stated
`
`23
`
`purpose of the On-Call Policy was to ensure that Charter’s network and systems
`
`24
`
`functioned reliably at all times. To that end, Charter required Plaintiffs and the class
`
`25
`
`members to work “on-call” for designated periods in order to respond to plant and
`
`26
`
`service emergencies outside of Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ regular 40-hour
`
`27
`
`workweek schedules. On-call work was mandatory, and according to Charter, “an
`
`28
`
`essential function of the position. An employee’s refusal or unavailability may render
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the employee unqualified for the position.” Any employee who violated the On-Call
`
`Policy was subject to discipline by Charter “up to and including termination of
`
`employment.”
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members were assigned on-call duty according to
`
`a rotating schedule. Plaintiffs and the class members were required to be available 24
`
`hours a day during the periods that they were on-call. Thus, Maintenance Techs
`
`assigned to week-long on-call periods worked 128 on-call hours in addition to their
`
`regular full-time 40-hour workweek.
`
`10. Charter acknowledged and agreed that on-call duty was compensable
`
`10
`
`work. Specifically, Charter paid Plaintiffs and the class members flat-rate
`
`11
`
`compensation known as “On-Call Pay.” On an hourly basis, On-Call Pay amounted
`
`12
`
`to less than $2.00 per hour.
`
`13
`
`11.
`
`In addition to the weekly On-Call Pay, if Plaintiffs and the class members
`
`14
`
`were required to actually report to a specific location while on-call, Charter paid
`
`15
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members “call-out pay,” which was 1.5 times their regular rate
`
`16
`
`of pay. Plaintiff and the class members were often called in to report to a job site
`
`17
`
`during their on-call periods, sometimes more than once per day. Getting called in was
`
`
`
`18
`
`a major interruption in their day as responding to emergency outages, including travel
`
`19
`
`time, almost always took over one hour, and frequently took several hours.
`
`20
`
`12. As Maintenance Techs, Charter subjected Plaintiffs and the class
`
`21
`
`members to numerous restrictions while they worked on-call, including, for example:
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Charter required Plaintiffs and the class members to carry a cell phone at
`
`all times;
`
`(b) Charter required Plaintiffs and the class members to always be in an area
`
`where Charter could contact them on the cell phones;
`
`(c) Per the express language of the On-Call Policy, the response time for
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members to respond to a call from a supervisor or
`
`other Charter personnel was within 15 minutes of receiving the call;
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(d) The On-Call Policy stated that Plaintiffs and the class members were
`
`required to report to the job site or other Charter location as soon as was
`
`“reasonably practical after receiving the assignment.” Charter also
`
`advised Plaintiffs and the class members that they were expected to report
`
`to the site and resolve the particular outage or other emergency all within
`
`two hours. The coverage area that Plaintiffs and the class members were
`
`responsible for while on-call was expansive. Therefore, in order to be
`
`able to respond and resolve emergencies within Charter’s time
`
`requirements, Plaintiffs and the class members could not travel beyond
`
`their coverage area while working on-call;
`
`(e) Exacerbating the geographic and time constraints, Charter required
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members to be effectively anchored to Charter-
`
`owned vehicles the entire time that they were on-call. Specifically, if
`
`called in, Plaintiffs and the class members were required report to the site
`
`in a Charter-owned vehicle, which was a large “bucket truck” outfitted
`
`with a crane-like, mechanized aerial lift platform (the “Bucket Trucks”).
`
`The Bucket Trucks enabled Plaintiffs and the class members to perform
`
`maintenance and repair work at heights up to about 40 feet. Per Charter
`
`policy, Plaintiffs and the class members took the Bucket Trucks home
`
`with them after their regular workweek shifts, including the period during
`
`which they were on-call. Charter monitored the exact location of the
`
`Bucket Trucks at all times through the vehicles’ ignition-triggered GPS
`
`system;
`
`(f) Charter permitted Plaintiffs and the class members to drive the company-
`
`assigned Bucket Trucks for personal use during on-call periods in order
`
`to “minimize response time” after being called to report to a site.
`
`However, Charter did not allow Plaintiffs and the class members to use
`
`the Buckets Truck as a regular “daily driver” vehicles in order to perform
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`day-to-day errands and quick trips, nor was it feasible to use the large,
`
`heavy-equipment Bucket Trucks for such purposes. The result is that,
`
`while on-call, Plaintiffs and the class members parked and kept the
`
`Bucket Trucks at their residences, and then stayed there tethered to the
`
`Bucket Trucks. If they traveled more than a few minutes away from
`
`where the Bucket Trucks were located, they could not comply with their
`
`on-call reporting time and outage resolution obligations;
`
`(g) Moreover, any use of the Bucket Trucks for personal purposes while on-
`
`call was subject to onerous restrictions and requirements. For example,
`
`when Plaintiffs and the class members used their Bucket Trucks during
`
`on-call periods, they were required to drive alone. They were “strictly
`
`prohibited from transporting any-non employee in a Charter vehicle,”
`
`including friends or family-members;
`
`(h) Also, every time Plaintiffs and the class members drove the Bucket
`
`Trucks while on-call after leaving them unattended, or every time that
`
`they drove the Bucket Trucks in reverse gear – whether using the Bucket
`
`Trucks in response to a “call out” from Charter or using the Bucket Trucks
`
`for personal purposes – Charter required the Plaintiffs and the class
`
`members to first perform a “Circle of Safety” procedure. This extensive
`
`vehicle and safety check included “looking under the vehicle and around
`
`the tires for children, animals or other potential hazards, signs of
`
`mechanical defects like dripping/puddle of water, oil, transmission or
`
`other fluids, and broken, loose, or missing vehicle components.”;
`
`(i) Plaintiffs and the class members were also required to inspect the Bucket
`
`Trucks during on-call periods on a daily basis, including on days which
`
`Plaintiff and the class members did not work one of their regular
`
`workweek shifts. This daily inspection requirement included visually
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inspecting or testing the brakes, steering, lights, wipers, body damage,
`
`glass breakage, or other necessary equipment;
`
`(j) Plaintiffs and the class members were also required, on a daily basis, and
`
`even on days in which they did not work one of their regular workweek
`
`shifts, to maintain the Bucket Trucks in a “neat and clean” condition by,
`
`among other things, disposing of all “[e]xcessive trash (fast food bags,
`
`soft drink cans, coffee cups, candy bar wrappers, etc.” No trash was
`
`allowed to be left in the open truck beds or on the aerial lift units.
`
`(k) Further, at all times, Charter required Plaintiffs and the class members to
`
`comply with Charter’s Motor Vehicle Policy. As such, whenever
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members drove the Bucket Trucks while on-call,
`
`whether it was for a “call out” or for personal purposes, Plaintiffs and the
`
`class members were prohibited from doing the following:
`
` keeping non-Charter-issued tools or equipment in the Bucket
`
`Trucks;
`
` eating anything;
`
` making outgoing cell phone calls while driving, including personal
`
`calls. They were required to pull over to the side of the road to
`
`make the outgoing call, even if they had the capability to make the
`
`call using hands-free technology;
`
` keeping a wireless device on the center console or otherwise
`
`“unsecured”;
`
` using a GPS device that required them to physically tap the device;
`
` using a radar detector;
`
` transporting firearms, fireworks, or flammable liquids;
`
` smoking or using smokeless vapor tobacco products; and
`
` parking the Bucket Trucks on private property other than
`
`Plaintiffs’ or the class members’ own private property. Thus,
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the class members could only park the Bucket Trucks
`
`on public streets when they used them for personal purposes while
`
`on-call. Further, when they parked the Bucket Trucks on these
`
`public streets, Plaintiffs and the class members were required by
`
`Charter to place orange safety cones around the perimeter of the
`
`vehicles.
`
`(l) If involved in any accident in the Bucket Trucks during the on-call
`
`periods, even on days when they did not work one of their regular
`
`workweek shifts, Plaintiffs and the class members were required to
`
`submit to a drug and alcohol test within 24 hours. Charter further
`
`required Plaintiffs and the class members to “not admit responsibility for
`
`a vehicle accident to any person” including to law enforcement, even if
`
`the accident had been their fault;
`
`(m) In addition to the required “Circle of Safety” check, every time Plaintiffs
`
`and the class members left a Bucket Truck unattended, they were required
`
`to always lock all doors and equipment containers and ensure that all
`
`applicable safety procedures had been followed, and to remove all
`
`personal articles from the vehicles or hide the articles from view;
`
`(n) Charter also required Plaintiffs and the class members to always report
`
`to a job site in uniform. Because of this restriction, Plaintiffs and the class
`
`members had to either wear their uniforms while on-call or always carry
`
`their uniforms with them and have them at their immediate disposal so
`
`that he had the ability to quickly change if called out; and
`
`(o) Charter also required Plaintiffs and the class members to always remain
`
`in the physical and mental condition that was expected during regular
`
`work hours, which effectively prohibited them from drinking alcohol,
`
`taking sleep aids and various other medications, or engaging in any other
`
`activity that might affect their physical or mental condition.
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`13. As stated, during the on-call periods, Plaintiffs and the class members
`
`were required to work on-call every hour outside of their regular work shift. Despite
`
`Charter’s agreement that on-call time was compensable working time, and the
`
`excessive and highly restrictive degree of control exercised by Charter during the on-
`
`call periods, Charter only paid Plaintiffs and the class members flat rate compensation
`
`which amounted to less than $2.00 per hour. This rate was far below the minimum
`
`wage and overtime rates of pay required under the both the Texas Labor Code and the
`
`California Labor Code.
`
`14. Apart from violating minimum wage and overtime laws with regard to
`
`10
`
`on-call hours, Charter failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for
`
`11
`
`the work that Plaintiffs and the class members performed in connection with
`
`12
`
`maintaining, inspecting, and safeguarding the Bucket Trucks and adhering to Charter’s
`
`13
`
`Motor Vehicle Policy. For example, Charter required Plaintiff and the class members
`
`14
`
`to perform a “Circle of Safety” inspection every time they drove the Bucket Truck,
`
`15
`
`even on days that they did not work one of their regular workweek shifts and/or while
`
`16
`
`they were on-call and using the Bucket Trucks for personal purposes. This was work
`
`17
`
`in excess of their regular 40-hour workweek for which they received no overtime
`
`
`
`18
`
`compensation. In addition, Charter required Plaintiffs and the class members to
`
`19
`
`perform daily maintenance and safety inspections and cleaning of the Bucket Truck,
`
`20
`
`even on days that they did not work one of their regular workweek shifts. This was
`
`21
`
`also work in excess of Plaintiffs and the class members’ regular 40-hour workweek
`
`22
`
`for which they did not receive minimum wage and/or overtime compensation.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`TEXAS STATE LAW CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`15. Plaintiff Freeze brings claims under the California Labor Code on his
`
`25
`
`own behalf and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil
`
`26
`
`Procedure.
`
`27
`
`16. Plaintiff Freeze seeks to represent a class that consists of all current and
`
`28
`
`former Charter employees who worked in Texas and who, within the applicable
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`limitations period(s): (i) held one or more of the following positions: Maintenance
`
`Tech I, Maintenance Tech II, and/or Maintenance Tech III; (ii) are not subject to
`
`Charter’s “Solution Channel” arbitration program; (iii) were assigned a Charter-
`
`owned bucket truck; (iv) and who, on one or more occasion, worked “on-call.”
`
`17. The statewide class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. On information and belief, the total number of putative class members
`
`for the statewide class is at least 100 individuals.
`
`18. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to
`
`members of the statewide class including, but not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Whether Charter failed to properly compensate class members for all the
`
`work that Charter required, encouraged or permitted class members to
`
`perform;
`
`b. Whether Charter failed to pay class members all compensation, including
`
`minimum wages and overtime wages, rightfully owed;
`
`c. Whether Charter failed to timely pay all wages due to the Maintenance
`
`Techs;
`
`d. Whether Charter’s payment of On-Call Pay to Maintenance Techs
`
`pursuant to its On-Call Policy violates the Texas minimum wage laws;
`
`e. Whether Charter willfully failed to comply with the Texas wage laws;
`
`and
`
`f. Plaintiff anticipates that Charter will raise defenses that are common to
`
`the class.
`
`19. Plaintiff Freeze will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`statewide class. Plaintiff Freeze has retained experienced counsel that are competent
`
`25
`
`in the prosecution of complex litigation and who have experience acting as class
`
`26
`
`counsel specifically in wage and hour litigation.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`20. The claims asserted by Plaintiff Freeze are typical of the class members
`
`he seeks to represent. Plaintiff Freeze has the same interest and suffer from the same
`
`injuries as the class members.
`
`21. Upon information and belief, there are no other class members who have
`
`an interest individually controlling the prosecution of his or her individual claims.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, the numerous common questions of law predominate over
`
`individual questions because Charter’s alleged underlying activities and impact of its
`
`policies and practices affected class members in the same manner: they were subjected
`
`to the same policy of suffering and performing work in excess of 40 hours per work
`
`10
`
`week without receiving their duly-earned overtime premium wages, and suffering and
`
`11
`
`performing work without receiving their duly-earned minimum wages.
`
`12
`
`23. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and
`
`13
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because the individual joinder of the parties
`
`14
`
`is impracticable. Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated
`
`15
`
`persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently
`
`16
`
`and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expenses if these claims were
`
`17
`
`brought individually. Moreover, the expenses and burden of individual litigation
`
`
`
`18
`
`would make it difficult for plaintiffs to bring individual claims. The presentation of
`
`19
`
`separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent and
`
`20
`
`varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Charter and/or
`
`21
`
`substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.
`
`22
`
`24. Without a class action, Charter will likely retain the benefit of its
`
`23
`
`wrongdoing and will continue a course of action, which will result in further damages
`
`24
`
`to the Plaintiff and the class members.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`CALIFORNIA STATE LAW CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`25. Plaintiff Pflaster brings claims under the California Labor Code on his
`
`27
`
`own behalf and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`28
`
`Procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`26. Plaintiff Pflaster seeks to represent a class that consists of all current and
`
`former Charter employees who worked in California and who, within the applicable
`
`limitations period(s): (i) held one or more of the following positions: Maintenance
`
`Tech I, Maintenance Tech II, and/or Maintenance Tech III; (ii) are not subject to
`
`Charter’s “Solution Channel” arbitration program; (iii) were assigned a Charter-
`
`owned bucket truck; (iv) and who, on one or more occasion, worked “on-call.”
`
`27. The statewide class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. On information and belief, the total number of putative class members
`
`for the statewide class is at least 100 individuals.
`
`10
`
`28. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to
`
`11
`
`members of the statewide class including, but not limited to, the following:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Whether Charter failed to properly compensate class members for all the
`
`work that Charter required, encouraged or permitted class members to
`
`perform;
`
`b. Whether Charter failed to pay class members all compensation, including
`
`minimum wages and overtime wages, rightfully owed;
`
`c. Whether Charter failed to compensate class members for all work
`
`performed in excess of 40 hours per work week with overtime premium
`
`wages;
`
`d. Whether Charter failed to timely pay all wages due to the Maintenance
`
`Techs;
`
`e. Whether Charter’s payment of On-Call Pay to Maintenance Techs
`
`pursuant to its On-Call Policy violates the California minimum wage and
`
`overtime laws;
`
`f. Whether Charter willfully failed to comply with the California wage and
`
`overtime laws; and
`
`g. Plaintiff anticipates that Charter will raise defenses that are common to
`
`the class.
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`29. Plaintiff Pflaster will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`statewide class. Plaintiff Pflaster has retained experienced counsel that are competent
`
`in the prosecution of complex litigation and who have experience acting as class
`
`counsel specifically in wage and hour litigation.
`
`30. The claims asserted by Plaintiff Pflaster are typical of the class members
`
`he seeks to represent. Plaintiff Pflaster has the same interest and suffer from the same
`
`injuries as the class members.
`
`31. Upon information and belief, there are no other class members who have
`
`an interest individually controlling the prosecution of his or her individual claims.
`
`10
`
`32.
`
`In addition, the numerous common questions of law predominate over
`
`11
`
`individual questions because Charter’s alleged underlying activities and impact of its
`
`12
`
`policies and practices affected class members in the same manner: they were subjected
`
`13
`
`to the same policy of suffering and performing work in excess of 40 hours per work
`
`14
`
`week without receiving their duly-earned overtime premium wages, and suffering and
`
`15
`
`performing work without receiving their duly-earned minimum wages.
`
`16
`
`33. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and
`
`17
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because the individual joinder of the parties
`
`
`
`18
`
`is impracticable. Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated
`
`19
`
`persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently
`
`20
`
`and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expenses if these claims were
`
`21
`
`brought individually. Moreover, the expenses and burden of individual litigation
`
`22
`
`would make it difficult for plaintiffs to bring individual claims. The presentation of
`
`23
`
`separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent and
`
`24
`
`varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Charter and/or
`
`25
`
`substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.
`
`26
`
`34. Without a class action, Charter will likely retain the benefit of its
`
`27
`
`wrongdoing and will continue a course of action, which will result in further damages
`
`28
`
`to the Plaintiff and the class members.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`VIOLATION OF TEXAS LABOR CODE § 62.051
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
`(Against Defendant Charter Communications, LLC)
`
`33. Plaintiff Freeze and the class reallege and incorporate by reference the
`
`allegations of the above-numbered paragraphs as through fully set forth herein.
`
`34. Charter dictated, controlled and ratified the wage and hour and all related
`
`employee compensation policies.
`
`35. Charter classified Plaintiff Freeze and the class as non-exempt under
`
`Texas law and paid them on an hourly rate.
`
`36. Texas law requires payment of at least the federal minimum wage set
`
`forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for all hours worked by non-exempt
`
`employees. (See Tex. Lab. Code, § 62.051.)
`
`37. Plaintiff Freeze and the class regularly worked hours for which they were
`
`not paid the FLSA-mandated minimum wage.
`
`38.
`
`Instead of paying Plaintiff Freeze and the class proper minimum wages,
`
`Charter paid Plaintiff Freeze and the class flat compensation known as “on-call pay.”
`
`Charter’s agreement to pay Plaintiff Freeze and the class “on-call pay” was a tacit
`
`admission by Charter that the on-call time was compensable working time.
`
`39.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff Freeze and the class were highly restricted while on-
`
`call. During their on-call weeks, Plaintiff Freeze and the class spent every minute
`
`outside of their regular full-time work schedules working on-call. Among other
`
`restrictions, they could not leave their coverage areas and they had to immediately
`
`respond to calls and immediately travel to job sites (in uniform) in order to resolve the
`
`emergencies within Charter’s two-hour time requirement. Adding to these excessive
`
`geographic and unduly restrictive fixed time limit restrictions, Charter required
`
`Plaintiff Freeze and the class to be anchored to the Bucket Trucks. They had to stay
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`with their trucks (or be no more than a few minutes away) at all times. In effect, this
`
`restriction confined them to their homes where the trucks were parked, or to the
`
`immediate vicinity, and it was akin to an on-premises living requirement. When
`
`Plaintiff Freeze and the class used the Bucket Trucks for personal purposes, they were
`
`required to adhere to numerous restrictions including, among other things: that they
`
`travel alone; that they refrain from eating; that they pull over before making outgoing
`
`telephone calls (even if they had hands-free capability); and that they perform
`
`extensive maintenance and safety checks every time they began driving the trucks or
`
`any time that they drove in reverse gear. Further, Plaintiff Freeze and the class were
`
`10
`
`required to conduct inspections on the trucks and maintain them on a daily basis, even
`
`11
`
`on days on which they did not work one of their regular workweek shifts, including
`
`12
`
`days on which they were not on-call.
`
`13
`
`40. For the week-long periods that Plaintiff Freeze and the class worked on-
`
`14
`
`call, the time that they worked on-call was compensable at the minimum wage set
`
`15
`
`forth in the FLSA.
`
`16
`
`41. Further, Plaintiff Freeze and the class took the Bucket Trucks home after
`
`17
`
`every shift, even when they were not working on-call. When Plaintiff Freeze and the
`
`
`
`18
`
`class took the Bucket Trucks home, Charter required them to perform “Circle of
`
`19
`
`Safety” inspections: (1) every time they drove the Bucket Trucks after leaving them
`
`20
`
`unattended; or (2) any time they drove in reverse gear. All such “Circle of Safety”
`
`21
`
`inspections conducted outside of their regularly-scheduled work shifts was
`
`22
`
`compensable at the minimum wage set forth in the FLSA. Likewise, Charter’s
`
`23
`
`requirement that Plaintiff Freeze and the class perform daily maintenance and safety
`
`24
`
`inspections and cleaning of the Bucket Trucks outside of their regularly-scheduled
`
`25
`
`work shifts was additional work that was compensable at the minimum wage set forth
`
`26
`
`in the FLSA.
`
`27
`
`42. At all times relevant hereto, Charter failed to pay Plaintiff Freeze and the
`
`28
`
`class minimum wage compensation in violation of Texas Labor Code section 62.051.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Through its actions, policies and practices, Charter violated the Texas Labor Code by
`
`regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate them for hours worked at the proper
`
`rate of pay. Plaintiff Freeze and the class seek such minimum wag