Shoots v. Iqor Holdings U.S. Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 15-CV-563 (SRN/SER) |
| Parties | Paris Shoots, Jonathan Bell, Maxwell, Turner, Tammy Hope, and Phillipp Ostrovsky on behalf of themselves, the Proposed Rule 23 Classes, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. iQor Holdings US Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Timothy C. Selander, Rachhana T. Srey, Carl F. Engstrom, Ashley R. Thronson, E. Michelle Drake, and John F. Albanese, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402; Douglas L. Micko, Vildan A. Teske, and Brian T. Rochel, Teske Micko Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, for Plaintiffs
Brian T. Benkstein, Gina K. Janeiro, Jackson Lewis P.C., 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3850, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, Erin E. McAdams, Kevin F. Gaffney, Sari M. Alamuddin, and Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601; Paul C. Evans, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) [Doc. No. 79] and Defendant iQor Holdings US Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 85]. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.
On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff Paris Shoots filed this action in Hennepin County District Court on behalf of himself and a proposed Rule 23 class of call center workers employed by Defendant iQor Holdings US Inc. ("iQor"). (Compl. [Doc. No. 1-1].) Defendant removed the action to this Court on February 20, 2015 (Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1]) and, on March 13, 2015, filed its Answer and an earlier Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. Nos. 12 & 13]. Upon learning that Shoots intended to amend his Complaint, Defendant withdrew its motion [Doc. No. 17].
On April 3, 2015, Shoots filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding as named Plaintiffs Jonathan Bell, Maxwell Turner, Tammy Hope, and Phillipp Ostrovsky. (FAC [Doc. No. 19].)1 In the FAC, Plaintiffs assert 23 state-law claims under the laws of Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Arizona seeking to recover straight time and overtime wages, and a nationwide collective action claim for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq..
Defendant iQor is a global provider of business process outsourcing and product support services, providing customer care outsourcing, business analytics software andservices, business processing outsourcing of back-office services, accounts receivable management services, and aftermarket services. (FAC ¶ 20; Def.'s Am. Answer ¶ 20 [Doc. No. 30].) Incorporated in Delaware, with headquarters in New York (FAC ¶ 20), iQor operates 25 call centers (referred to by Defendant as "contact centers") throughout the United States, including call centers in Arizona, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio. (FAC ¶ 22; Def.'s Am. Ans. ¶ 22.) Defendant employs contact center agents ("CCAs" or "agents") in these locations and others across the country, paying them on an hourly basis. (FAC ¶ 2.) Although CCAs may have different job titles depending on the nature of the calls and iQor's clients' lines of business, CCAs are generally responsible for receiving incoming calls from and/or making outbound calls to clients' customers. (FAC ¶ 29.) Among the outsourcing services iQor provides are collections, customer service, and inbound sales. (FAC ¶ 28.)
Prior to commencing an employment relationship, iQor sends each prospective CCA a letter offering employment at a fixed hourly wage for all hours worked. (FAC ¶ 32.) The letters are captioned "PERSONAL and CONFIDENTIAL Employment Agreement." (Employment Agreements, Exs. A-E to Def.'s Am. Answer [Doc. No. 78-1].) The Employment Agreement sets forth the start date, title, function, location, and hourly wage of each CCA. (Id.) In addition, the Employment Agreement contains a merger clause that provides, "This Agreement represents our mutual complete understanding of your employment terms at iQor and supersedes any prior agreement (oral or written) that you may have, but does not constitute an agreement for employmentfor any specific period of time." (Id.) It appears that the Employment Agreements were sent to Plaintiffs electronically, as iQor instructs the recipients to "[p]lease confirm your acceptance of this Agreement by clicking on the ["I Accept"] link below." (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that they received these Employment Agreements and accepted employment with iQor. (FAC ¶ 32.)
Using a system called "TimeQey," iQor tracks CCAs' work activity, including the time when they log in at the beginning of their shifts, the time they log in and out for scheduled meal and rest breaks, and the time they log out at the end of their shifts. (FAC ¶ 3.) Through TimeQey, iQor also tracks whether CCAs are actively using their computers. (FAC ¶ 4.) If a CCA's computer is idle for two minutes or more, TimeQey considers this time to be inactive or "idle" time and records the number of minutes until the CCA uses the computer again. (Id.) Defendant considers this idle time non-compensable. (FAC ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs, however, allege that time recorded as idle may include time spent performing actual work, including time spent attending a meeting, helping a coworker, taking a rest break or waiting for incoming calls. (Id.) Defendant pays CCAs on a hourly basis consistent with the time reported in TimeQey, which does not include any idle time, and issues pay semi-monthly. (FAC ¶ 6, 30.)
In order to contest deductions for idle time, CCAs must submit a request for reimbursement to iQor's management. (FAC ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs allege that many managers refuse to grant reimbursement altogether, or only do so if the manager was personally aware of the idle time, e.g., where the CCA attended a meeting at which the manager waspresent. (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs allege that it is iQor's policy to refuse reimbursement for time used as a rest break. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that many employees never request reimbursement because of time constraints or because of pressure from management not to request reimbursement. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that in their offers of employment, iQor did not refer to the TimeQey system nor did iQor indicate that certain time would not be compensated. (FAC ¶ 32.) Plaintiffs also allege that iQor fails to explain the TimeQey system to new hires and fails to explain its policies on non-compensable time or employees' ability to request idle time reimbursement. (FAC ¶ 38.) When CCAs inquire or complain about the timekeeping system and related policies, Plaintiffs maintain that iQor instructs them not to discuss such concerns with other employees. (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that even when iQor reimburses a CCA for a period of idle time, the CCA is not fully reimbursed because Defendant's policy prohibits the reimbursement time range from matching any other times previously recorded in TimeQey. (FAC ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs provide the following example: "If TimeQey records a CCA as idle from 2:50 P.M. to 3:00 P.M., the CCA may only request a reimbursement for the period between 2:51 P.M. to 2:59 P.M.," resulting in two minutes of uncompensated time. (Id.) Plaintiffs thus allege that although CCAs are scheduled to work straight time of 40 hours in a workweek, and do so, iQor's policy of deducting idle time recorded by TimeQey from their total hours worked results in them being paid for less than 40 hours of work in a week. (FAC ¶ 40.) Based on Defendant's idle time deductions, Plaintiffs therefore contend that theywere not paid for all of their straight time hours worked, as required by contract and statute. (FAC ¶ 43.)
Defendant schedules some CCAs to work 40 hours in a workweek with five 8.5-hour shifts punctuated by daily half hour, unpaid meal breaks. (FAC ¶ 31.) In terms of break time, prior to January 1, 2015, iQor gave CCAs up to 15 minutes of rest breaks every four hours, but only compensated CCAs for five minutes of rest break time every four hours. (FAC ¶ 41.) In addition, although iQor compensated CCAs for a second five-minute rest break if they worked full eight-hour shifts, Plaintiffs allege that such compensation rarely occurred because the deduction of idle time made it difficult for CCAs to reach the eight-hour threshold. (Id.) Similarly, Plaintiffs contend, CCAs working a half day or weekend shift, which was often four hours long, were not typically compensated for any rest break time. (Id.) On January 1, 2015, iQor changed its policy and now requires CCAs to take two compensated 10-minute breaks per eight-hour shift. (FAC ¶ 42.) Based on iQor's pre-January 1, 2015 practice regarding break time deductions, Plaintiffs contend that they were not properly compensated for rest break time. (FAC ¶ 44.)
Defendant also schedules some CCAs to work more than 40 hours in a workweek, including but not limited to longer or additional shifts. (FAC ¶ 31.) For certain Plaintiffs and members of proposed overtime classes who worked overtime, they allege that iQor's policies with respect to idle time and rest breaks resulted in them not being properly compensated for all overtime work. (FAC ¶¶ 53-60.)
In sum, as a result of Defendant's TimeQey system and break policies, Plaintiffs assert that iQor operated a scheme to deprive them and members of the proposed Rule 23 class and nationwide FLSA collective class of proper compensation for all of their hours worked. (FAC ¶ 45.)
As noted, the named Plaintiffs are current or former employees of iQor. Plaintiff Paris Shoots is a Minnesota resident and former iQor employee....
To continue reading
Request your trial