Former Amazon Worker Seeks Class Certification in Overtime Suit
A former Amazon.com LLC shift manager who claims the online retailer denied him overtime pay is seeking class action status in California federal district court, an attempt to widen the scope of allegations that workers are unfairly enduring grueling “internet speed” conditions in the retail company's warehouses across the country.
November 30, 2017 at 11:12 AM
4 minute read
A former Amazon.com LLC shift manager who claims the online retailer denied him overtime pay is seeking class action status in California federal district court, an attempt to widen the scope of allegations that workers are unfairly enduring grueling “internet speed” conditions in the retail company's warehouses across the country.
The case filed by Michael Ortiz in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California argued that salaried managers in Amazon warehouses—employees who are described as “glorified box shufflers” in the complaint—should be classified as nonexempt employees with the right to overtime pay for work over 40 hours a week. The case was originally filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court.
Oritz, who worked for Amazon in San Francisco-area facilities, seeks to include managers in warehouses who were classified as “Level 4″ managers and were salaried rather than hourly employees. His complaint alleged manager positions are misclassified, a violation of federal and state wage and hour law because the workers did not do supervisory work that would give them exempt status.
An Amazon spokeswoman told The Recorder on Wednesday that it is the company's policy not to comment on ongoing litigation. The company is represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
Ortiz's attorneys at Scott Cole & Associates argued in part that the class should be certified based on the uniformity of job duties.
“They spent their days as glorified box stufflers required to perform virtually constant manual labor on the delivery line due to insufficient staffing and its pursuit of 'leading the change at internet speed,'” Corey Bennett of Scott Cole wrote in court documents. “Because they were misclassified, they were not paid overtime wages. In many cases, due to the massive number of hours worked with minimal compensation, their wages fell below the federal standard.”
Ortiz claims in the lawsuit that he and other “Level 4 managers” were required to do constant manual labor, packing and picking up boxes, due to insufficient staffing. The work included tasks such as offloading trucks, staging equipment and unloading, receiving and scanning packages, the lawsuit alleges. The 10-hour shifts, four day a week were long enough to trigger mandatory rest breaks but Ortiz claims he did not take them, as hourly workers were required to do.
In October, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White denied the company's motion to strike the class allegations and allowed the case to move forward.
In 2014, a wage and hour case involving Amazon made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled unanimously that requiring employees to go through security screenings at the end of their workday does not require the company to pay overtime.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250