A proposed class action lawsuit filed in California claims that Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communication, Inc. failed to provide workers with proper breaks and all owed wages.
According to the case, the defendants regularly required employees to work over five hours without a 30-minute uninterrupted lunch break as mandated by California law and sometimes required employees to work 10 hours without a second mandated meal period. From the complaint:
“[A]s a consequence of Defendants’ staffing and scheduling practices, lack of coverage, work demands, and Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants frequently failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members timely, legally complaint [sic] uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods on shifts over five hours as required by law.”
The case claims that Charter Communications “prioritize[d] the completion of Plaintiff and Class Members[’] work over their lunches.” Employees were allegedly required by supervisors to take calls on their company cell phones and to send updates regarding their progress – even if they were on a break. The complaint alleges that these calls amounted to off-the-clock work for which the proposed class never received proper compensation.
Furthermore, under California law, companies are required to provide employees with a 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked, the case states. The defendants, however, allegedly failed to provide employees with such breaks. If employees are deprived of the required meal or rest periods set forth under state law, their employer is required to provide an hour’s pay in lieu thereof – something that the case claims the defendants failed to do.
As a result of these alleged practices, the case says that employees’ wage statements did not accurately account for all hours worked and all wages earned. The case further contends that Charter Communications failed to pay all wages due upon termination and “failed to accurately account for Plaintiff and Class Members’ earned bonuses into their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes.” Thus, employees were deprived of proper time-and-a-half overtime wages as required under state and federal law, according to the suit.