throbber
Case 8:21-cv-01212 Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket