Michelle Massey, East Texas Bureau Nov. 3, 2008, 8:18am
MARSHALL -- Employees of a well-known security service company claim the company has violated federal law by failing to pay the workers for overtime and have filed a class action complaint.
Bryan Champion, Ronnie Danage, John Engelke, Curtis Green, Max Murphy and David Thompson, individually and on behalf all other similarly situated, filed the suit against ADT Security Services Inc.
Filed on Oct. 28 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, the suit alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act.
The proposed class of plaintiffs consists of service and maintenance technicians, commercial installers, installation technicians, residential installers or installation technicians who were responsible for the installation, maintenance, inspection and repair of ADT devices in commercial and residential security systems for the past three years.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs argue they were employed in excess of 40 hours per week but not properly compensated for their time.
The plaintiffs allege ADT knew its employees were not receiving overtime compensation for all hours worked and "willfully engaged in unlawful conduct by failing to record all of the time…"
According to the complaint, to be quickly dispatched to customer's locations, the plaintiffs were required to take company vehicles home. However, the plaintiffs state that were not paid for travel time to and from home or to office or work sites. To be paid in excess of the regular workweek, the plaintiffs state they would need prior approval from managers or supervisors.
Plaintiffs seek damages for lost wages, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid overtime, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.
Richmond attorneys David Showalter and Mark Wham of the Showalter Law Firm and Marshall attorney Michael C. Smith of the Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips, and Smith, LLP-Marshall are representing the proposed class of plaintiffs.
U.S. District Judge T. John Ward will preside over the litigation.
ADT has not responded to the allegations.
Case No 2:08cv00417