Call
Email
Menu

Overtime Cases Against Cushman & Wakefield (C&W Facility Services, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., and Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc.) for Maintenance Employees

Our firm has filed an unpaid overtime case against C&W Facility Services, Inc. (“C&W” or “Cushman & Wakefield”), a subsidiary of Cushman & Wakefield, related to its failure to compensate hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees for missed or interrupted meal breaks, which resulted in unpaid overtime for these employees. The allegations state that C&W’s hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees’ meal breaks were regularly interrupted by job duties (such as repairing machinery and equipment) that did not allow them to be completely relieved of their job duties. The lawsuit alleges that these Cushman & Wakefield maintenance employees were not properly compensated for overtime wages for all overtime work they performed. If you have any questions or would like more information about this case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Our firm has also filed a companion unpaid overtime case against Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. (also “C&W” or “Cushman & Wakefield”), related to C&W’s failure to compensate hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees for missed or interrupted meal breaks, which resulted in unpaid overtime for these employees. The allegations state that C&W’s hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees’ meal breaks were regularly interrupted by job duties (such as repairing machinery and equipment) that did not allow them to be completely relieved of their job duties. The lawsuit alleges that these Cushman & Wakefield maintenance employees were not properly compensated for overtime wages for all overtime work they performed. If you have any questions or would like more information about this case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation. Our office is seeking to combine / consolidate the case filed against C&W Facility Services, Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc.

Overtime Case Against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (BMW Financial)

Our firm has filed an unpaid overtime case against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (BMW Financial) related to its failure to pay call center employees for all overtime hours worked. The allegations include that call center employees at BMW Financial’s facilities were required to report to work prior to the scheduled start of their shifts to perform integral and indispensable job duties, such as booting up their computers and programs, before they were able to clock in. The lawsuit alleges that BMW Financial’s call center employees were not compensated for this pre-shift work. If you have any questions or would like more information about this case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Registered Behavior Technician Unpaid Overtime Case Against Hopebridge

Our firm has filed an unpaid overtime case against Hopebridge, LLC (“Hopebridge”) related to its failure to compensate hourly, non-exempt registered behavior technicians (“RBTs”) for its companywide unlawful break policy, including that it required RBTs to clock out for all breaks and “meal breaks” regardless of how short. Hopebridge maintained a written policy that required RBTs to clock out for all breaks of 15 minutes or more, but it required employees to clock out for all breaks. Despite clocking out for a “meal break,” RBTs regularly performed work during such breaks. In addition to its unlawful break policy, Hopebridge failed to pay registered behavior technicians for all overtime work performed for several other reasons. First, RBTs were not performed for pre-shift work they performed off-the-clock prior to the scheduled start of their shifts. Second, RBTs were not paid for all time spent attending pre-shift group meetings. Third, RBTs were not paid for time spent working during occupational therapy services sessions. Fourth, registered behavior technicians were not paid for work performed during speech therapy services sessions. Finally, Hopebridge failed to pay RBTs for all work they performed after the scheduled end of their shifts. If you have any questions or would like more information about the registered behavior technician unpaid overtime case against Hopebridge, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Against The Sygma Network

Our unpaid overtime lawyers have filed an unpaid overtime case The SYGMA Network, Inc. (“SYGMA”) related to its failure to compensate its warehouse employees for pre-shift and post-shift job duties as well as interrupted (or shortened) meal breaks which resulted in unpaid overtime for the warehouse employees. The allegations include that SYGMA required its warehouse employees to arrive at the facility early in order to don certain personal protective equipment (“PPE”), gather their equipment for the day, and engage in other pre-shift job duties. The allegations further state that SYGMA warehouse employees’ meal breaks were regularly interrupted by job duties, including needing to doff and don PPE during the meal breaks, that did not allow them to be completely relieved of their job duties for a full 30 minutes. Lastly, the allegations state SYGMA warehouse employees are required to clock out of work at the end of their shift and then doff their PPE and return their equipment. The lawsuit alleges that these employees were not properly compensated for overtime wages at one and one half times their regular rate of pay for overtime work they performed. If you have any questions or would like more information about this case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Overtime Lawsuit Filed Against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.

Our experienced overtime lawyers have filed an unpaid overtime case Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (“ADS”) related to its failure to compensate employees for pre-shift and post-shift work as well as interrupted meal breaks. The allegations include that ADS did not compensate employees for all of the work that they performed outside of their scheduled shifts and that ADS took meal break deductions regardless of whether employees had a bona fide meal period that was uninterrupted by work. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the nonpayment of wages for work performed outside of scheduled shifts and the improper meal break deductions, these employees were not fully compensated for overtime wages at one and one half times their regular rate of pay for overtime work they performed. If you have any questions or would like more information about the ADS overtime wage case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation with one of our experienced overtime attorneys.

Piece Rate Overtime Case Against Forest River RV

Our firm (along with Nilges Draher LLC and Hassler Kondras Miller LLP) has filed an unpaid overtime case for Forest River RV’s “piece rate” production workers related to its alleged failure to fully and properly compensate “piece rate” workers on a “bona fide” piece rate system for all of their overtime wages earned. The lawsuit alleges that Forest River RV has failed to fully and properly compensate its pieceworkers the overtime wages they earned because Forest River’s piece rate pay system improperly included nonproductive work hours in its calculation of piece rate employees’ overtime rates. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that Forest River also took unlawful wage deductions from its employees’ pay. If you have any questions or would like more information about the Forest River “piece rate” production worker overtime lawsuit, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Overtime Case Against Austin Powder Company

Our firm has filed an overtime lawsuit against Austin Powder Company ("APC”) for failure to pay all overtime earned for three reasons. First, we allege that APC employees are not paid all overtime wages because APC maintains an unlawful rounding system that underpays its employees. For instance, APC maintains a policy or practice of prohibiting employees from clocking in more than 7 minutes before the scheduled start of their shift which ensures that employees are not paid for any pre-shift work. Second, APC employees are not paid for missed or interrupted meal breaks that they cannot take without interruptions by work. Third., APC pays employees at 1.5 times their hourly rate of pay and it does not include certain additional pay, such as non-discretionary bonus payments. If you have any questions or would like more information about the unpaid overtime case against Austin Powder Company, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Contact Coffman Legal Today

+ =