TrueCoverage LLC has been named as the defendant in two former employees’ wage and hour lawsuit that accuses the company of misclassifying insurance agents as independent contractors and failing to pay them proper wages.
TrueCoverage LLC has been named as the defendant in two former employees’ wage and hour lawsuit that accuses the company of misclassifying insurance agents as independent contractors and failing to pay them proper wages. The plaintiffs allege that they worked for the insurance provider as at-home call center employees, responsible for pursuing leads provided to them by the defendant and attempting to sell the company’s insurance products. The workers were supposedly paid on a commission-only basis but were “charged back” amounts they made on sales that were canceled “within the first several months.”
The lawsuit argues that though the plaintiffs often worked well over 40 hours per week, the defendant didn’t pay them time-and-a-half overtime wages. “No matter how an employee is paid—whether by the hour, by the piece, on a commission, or on a salary—the employee’s compensation must be converted to an equivalent hourly rate from which the overtime rate can be calculated,” the complaint states.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs say that when divided by their number of hours worked, their pay often fell below the required hourly minimum rate in violation of both state and federal law. They also claim the defendant failed to provide them with proper meal and rest breaks, as they were many times forced to work through breaks due to a lack of coverage.
The lawsuit argues that the defendant’s supposed wage violations stem from the company’s misclassification of insurance agents as independent contractors who are unprotected by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, agents should have instead been treated as employees due to the level of control the defendant maintained over their job duties. The lawsuit claims the defendant required that agents read an approved script on all their calls; adhere to the pricing, terms and conditions the defendant set for its products; use equipment and tools provided by the company; and sell insurance under the defendant’s license. Because they were misclassified as contractors, however, agents didn’t receive minimum and overtime wages in accordance with the law, the suit says.