Photo: Bigstock

A federal judge has denied appliance retailer Gerhard's request for summary judgment in an employment suit brought by one of its drivers.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to toss the plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and common-law breach of contract claims.

Plaintiff Seyoung Ra claimed that Gerhard's made him, as a contractor, pay for gas when using delivery trucks, made him pay into a damages fund to be tapped for use if merchandise was damaged during delivery, and did not pay him for his time delivering scrap metal back to the Gerhard's warehouse—which would then profit by selling the scrap.

According to Goldberg, “Gerhard's deducted $400 per week from plaintiff's pay for delivery truck rental, no matter how many days he worked per week, and deducted $50 per week from his pay for a fund to pay for any alleged damage caused as a consequence of a delivery. Gerhard's used these funds at its sole discretion to reimburse customers for any alleged damage. Following the end of plaintiff's tenure as a lead delivery driver, Gerhard's failed to return the retainer fund balance of $910.00, despite the fact that plaintiff did not cause any damages that would justify Gerhard's retention of that money.”

Additionally, Goldberg noted, “On certain dates during the period March 2017 through June 5, 2017, Gerhard's required plaintiff to perform extra work beyond making local appliance deliveries. The additional work included labor for assembly of grills and special installations for Gerhard's customers; travelling long distances to make deliveries to locations such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and on two occasions, to the New York/Connecticut area; assembling gas grills at customer homes; and performing other labor related to appliances being delivered to Gerhard's customers. On certain occasions when plaintiff was required to perform additional work, he was advised that he would receive additional compensation ranging from $10 to $680 depending on the additional work assigned. The agreement for the additional work compensation was allegedly an oral agreement between plaintiff and Gerhard's.”

But Gerhard's allegedly failed to pay Ra the agreed compensation for the additional work, which totaled approximately $3,500, Goldberg said. Ra also alleged employer-sponsored benefits were unavailable to him, as he was not considered a full-time employee.

Andrew Abramson represents Ra.

“Mr. Ra is looking forward to continuing to pursue his claims in the litigation,” Abramson said in an email.

Benjamin Spang of Dilworth Paxson represents Gerhard's and did not respond to a request for comment.