Granite Telecommunications Facing Collective Action Over Alleged Worker Misclassification

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Two plaintiffs allege in a proposed collective action that Granite Telecommunications, LLC gives different managerial-sounding job titles to the exact same sales positions as a means to avoid its obligation to pay time-and-a-half overtime wages. The lawsuit says inside sales representatives with job titles such as, but not limited to, “Sr. Account Manager;” “Industry Account Manager;” “National Account Manager;” and “Enterprise Account Manager” were not paid proper time-and-a-half overtime wages. Even when they were, the complaint says, the workers were “willfully and intentionally underpaid for all such hours.” 

“[The plaintiffs] and the [proposed class] of similarly situated employees did not in the past, and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of any exemption under the [Fair Labor Standards Act], and the defendant’s pay practice and scheme to violate the FLSA are not only clearly unlawful, but unfair as well,” the complaint reads.

The plaintiffs go so far as to allege that a situation that once may have been explained as an instance of simple worker misclassification has turned into one of intentional non-payment of wages. 

“Although the inside sales representatives working for [the defendant] were informed they were ‘salaried,’ it is unknown how the defendant on paper or internally classified them. The reality is that prior to February 2017, [the defendant] treated all inside sales representatives in all of its offices as exempt employees, not tracking their work hours and not paying them a premium for overtime hours they knew its employees were working. Thus, this case may be properly asserted as a case of misclassification prior to February 2017, and after February 2017, a case of just willful underpayment and failure to pay.”

The plaintiffs charge the defendant “absolutely and unquestionably” knew inside sales reps were consistently working overtime hours, with some managers and superiors pushing members of the proposed collective to “work as many hours as possible to hit quotas and meet goals.” Further, the plaintiffs claim the defendant intentionally misled them and members of the proposed collective into believing their jobs required only 40 hours per week and that they would be paid as and treated like salaried exempt employees.