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.

Employee Misclassification Overtime Case Against Gulfport Energy Corporation

Our firm has filed a misclassification and unpaid overtime case against Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) related to its misclassification of employees as “independent contractors” which resulted in unpaid overtime for the employees. The allegations state Gulfport misclassified employees as “independent contractors” even though these employees worked on Gulfport’s drilling pads, under the direction of Gulfport supervisors, during scheduled days and times, at a set rate of pay, and performing the exact same jobs and duties as other workers of Gulfport who were classified properly as employees. The lawsuit alleges that due to Gulfport’s misclassification of these employees as “independent contractors,” these employees were not properly compensated for overtime wages at one and half times their regular pay. 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 files an Unpaid Overtime Case Against Hopebridge for Unlawful Break Deductions and other Off-the-Clock Work

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.

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 ContactUS Communications

Our firm has filed an unpaid overtime case against ContactUS, LLC and ContactUS Technology, Ltd. (ContactUS Communications) related to the failure to pay customer service representatives for all overtime hours worked. The allegations include that ContactUS Communications did not pay customer service representatives for time spent troubleshooting computer issues regardless of whether such employees were working in a ContactUS Communications facility or remotely from home. If you have any questions or would like more information about this case against ContactUS Communications, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation. Our experienced overtime lawyers are here to explain the allegations of the case and your rights to overtime wages.

Overtime Case Against Arrow Senior Living Management, LLC (“Arrow”)

Our firm has filed an unpaid overtime case against Arrow Senior Living Management, LLC (“Arrow”) related to its failure to fully and properly pay healthcare employees for all overtime hours worked. The allegations include that healthcare employees at Arrow required a daily meal deduction even though employees were often unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break. Additionally, the allegations include that Arrow did not properly calculate its healthcare employees’ regular rates of pay (for purposes of calculating overtime rates) because it did not factor in “sign-on bonuses” and/or other nondiscretionary bonuses for working extra hours or shifts for which healthcare employees were not scheduled to work. Because of Arrow’s meal break deduction and its failure to include all additional remuneration, including nondiscretionary bonuses, in employees’ regular rate of pay calculations, Arrow employees were not fully and properly compensated all overtime wages that they earned. If you have any questions or would like more information about the Arrow unpaid overtime case, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Contact Coffman Legal Today

+ =