1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK

Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)

2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
4 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
5 Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
12
13 SETH PRATT; and individual, on behalf CASE No.
14 of himself and all persons similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
15 1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
16 Plaintiff, VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ;
17 vs.
2. FAILURE TO PAY STRAIGHT
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC.; and TIME AND OVERTIME WAGES IN
18 Does 1 through 50, VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
19 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218, 510, 1194 &
1198; and,
20 Defendant.
3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE
21 STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
22 CAL. LAB. CODE § 226.

23 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiff Sett Pratt ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and belief,
2 except for his own acts and knowledge, the following:
3
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Defendant Verizon California Inc. hereinafter also referred to as "VERIZON" or
6 "DEFENDANT" provides domestic wireline telecommunication services to residential and
7 business consumers. In order to support its telecommunication services, VERIZON retains call-
8 center customer service representatives who are responsible for all customer support related
9 matters, specifically, computer, phone, television and sales support. During the CLASS
10 PERIOD, VERIZON failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF Seth Pratt "PLAINTIFF" and all the
11 other Class Members wages earned for the actual number of hours worked. VERIZON
12 intentionally and unlawfully failed to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for
13 compensable work time which was spent logging onto computers, initializing software
14 applications, and preparing to take and/or make phone calls. This is due to the fact that
15 VERIZON had in place two conflicting policies and practices. On the one hand, these
16 employees were not paid until they took their first phone call at the start of their scheduled shifts
17 and on the other hand, these employees were required to work before the start of their scheduled
18 shifts preparing their computer systems because it was a requirement for the employees to
19 properly perform the functions of their jobs. VERIZON enforced this policy by penalizing all
20 employees who were not prepared to take their first call with "customer mistreat," "adherence"
21 and "tardy" violations whereby multiple violations resulted in employment termination. As a
22 result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members who performed this job duty regularly worked
23 off the clock before the start of their scheduled shifts because this preparation was indispensable
24 to performing their jobs. This additional time spent preparing computer systems before the start
25 of their scheduled shifts was work performed subject to DEFENDANT’s control and for
26 DEFENDANT’s benefit. Consequently, all time spent performing such work constitutes "hours
27 worked" and is therefore compensable. VERIZON’s uniform policy and practice to not pay
28 employees for compensable work time is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-1-
 1 2. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against VERIZON on behalf of himself and on
2 behalf of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for VERIZON
3 as a call-center customer service representative ("Call-Center Employees") in California during
4 the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action
5 to fully compensate the Class Members for their losses incurred during the CLASS PERIOD
6 caused by VERIZON’s uniform policy and practice which fails to compensate the PLAINTIFF,
7 and the Class Members, for all hours worked, including overtime hours. VERIZON’s uniform
8 policy and practice alleged herein of denying the Class Members compensation for all hours
9 worked during the CLASS PERIOD is an unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice whereby
10 VERIZON retained and continues to retain wages and other monies due PLAINTIFF and the
11 Class Members. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members seek an injunction enjoining such conduct
12 by VERIZON in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the Class Members who have
13 been economically injured by VERIZON’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other
14 appropriate legal and equitable relief.
15
16 THE PARTIES
17 3. Defendant Verizon California Inc. ("VERIZON" or "DEFENDANT") offers
18 telecommunication services for the transmission of telecommunications among customers
19 located within California, Nevada and Arizona. The company was founded in 1929 and is
20 based and headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times mentioned
21 herein, VERIZON conducted and continues to conduct substantial and regular business
22 throughout California.
23 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
24 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendant Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently
25 unknown to the PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names
26 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
27 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
28 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-2-
 1 and belief alleges, that the defendants named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through
2 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
3 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
4 5. The agents, servants, and/or employees of the DEFENDANT and each of them
5 acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
6 authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of the DEFENDANT, and personally
7 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the DEFENDANT with respect to the
8 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, DEFENDANT is jointly and severally liable to the
9 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate
10 result of the conduct of the DEFENDANT’s agents, servants, and/or employees.
11 6. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Sett Pratt ("PLAINTIFF")
12 resided in California. PLAINTIFF was employed by VERIZON in California as a non-
13 exempt, hourly "Fiber Customer Support Analyst" from March 2007 to November 2009. At
14 all relevant times mentioned herein, the PLAINTIFF primarily performed the job duty of
15 taking and/or making customer service related phone calls.
16
17 THE CLASS & CONDUCT
18 7. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against VERIZON pursuant to California Code
19 of Civil Procedure, Section 382, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class consisting of
20 all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for VERIZON as a Call-Center Employee in
21 California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). The applicable
22 "CLASS PERIOD" is defined as the period beginning on the date four (4) years prior to the
23 filing of this Complaint and ending on a date as determined by the Court.
24 8. During the CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON systematically failed to pay the
25 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for compensable work time which was spent logging
26 onto computers, initializing software applications, and preparing to take and/or make phone
27 calls. Prior to clocking in, employees were required to prepare their computer systems
28 because this preparation was a requirement for the employees to properly perform the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-3-
 1 functions of their jobs. Verizon ensured that these employees were prepared at the start of
2 their scheduled shifts because employees who were unprepared to take their first phone call
3 received "customer mistreat," "adherence" and "tardy" violations. As a result, the
4 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members who engaged in taking and/or making customer service
5 related phone calls regularly worked off the clock before the start of their scheduled shifts
6 because this preparation was indispensable to performing their jobs. This additional time
7 spent preparing before the start of their scheduled shifts was work performed subject to
8 DEFENDANT’s control and for DEFENDANT’s benefit. Consequently, all time spent
9 performing such work constitutes "hours worked" and is therefore compensable.
10 9. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, in violation of the applicable sections of the
11 California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
12 Wage Order, VERIZON as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure,
13 intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to properly pay the PLAINTIFF and the
14 Class Members for compensable work time which was spent logging onto computers,
15 initializing software applications, and preparing to take and/or make phone calls. During the
16 CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON had in place two conflicting policies whereby employees were
17 not paid until they took their first phone call when their shifts began even though they were
18 required to invest additional time off the clock preparing their computer systems because it
19 was necessary and preliminary to performing the functions of their jobs. These uniform
20 policies and systematic practices of VERIZON were intended to purposefully avoid the
21 payment of wages required by California law which allows VERIZON to illegally profit and
22 gain an unfair advantage over competitors. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll
23 claims by the CLASS against VERIZON, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted
24 accordingly.
25 10. All non-exempt, hourly employees working for VERIZON as a Call-Center
26 Employee in California are similarly situated in that they are all subject to VERIZON’s uniform
27 policy and systematic practice that requires them to perform work without compensation as
28 required by law.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-4-
 1 11. VERIZON has a uniform policy and practice in California of requiring employees
2 to perform tasks which are necessary and preliminary to completing their day-to-day work
3 without compensation subject to DEFENDANT’s strict adherence guidelines. This systematic
4 and uniform company-wide policy originating at the corporate level is the cause of the illegal
5 pay practices as described herein. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON failed to pay
6 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members wages earned for all the hours they worked, including
7 compensable work time which was spent logging onto computers, initializing software
8 applications, and preparing to take and/or make phone calls. VERIZON’s business demands
9 that the Class Members perform work off the clock but fail to compensate the Class Members
10 for all the hours they work.
11 12. During the CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON uniformly violated the rights of the
12 Class Members under California law, without limitation, in the following manners:
13 (a) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7) and
14 11040(7) by failing pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members wages
15 earned for all hours worked, including off the clock compensable work
16 time;
17 (b) Violating California Labor Code Sections 204, 510 and 1198 by failing to
18 pay premium wages for hours worked in excess eight (8) in any workday
19 and forty (40) in any workweek;
20 (c) Violating California Labor Code Section 226 by failing to provide the
21 Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements;
22 (d) Violating California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 by failing to tender
23 full payment and/or restitution of wages owed to the employees whose
24 employment with DEFENDANT has terminated; and,
25 (e) Violating Business & Processions Code Section 17200, et seq., by
26 committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Labor
27 Code and public policy, by failing to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class
28 Members wages for all hours of worked.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-5-
 1 13. As a result of VERIZON’s uniform policies, practices and procedures, there
2 are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who worked for
3 VERIZON in California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but are not
4 limited to, the following:
5 (a) Whether VERIZON’s policies, practices and pattern of conduct described
6 in this Complaint were and are unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive;
7 (b) Whether VERIZON failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class
8 Members for all hours worked;
9 (c) Whether VERIZON failed to consider compensable off the clock work as
10 "hours worked" without compensation;
11 (d) Whether VERIZON failed to provide mandatory rest periods;
12 (e) Whether VERIZON failed to provide employees with accurate itemized
13 wage statements;
14 (f) Whether VERIZON’s compensatory time policy and practice complies
15 with the requirements of Labor Code §204.3;
16 (g) Whether VERIZON has engaged in unfair competition by the above-listed
17 conduct; and,
18 (h) Whether VERIZON’s conduct was willful.
19 14. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class
20 Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, in that:
21 (a) The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder
22 of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as
23 a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
24 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues
25 that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and will apply
26 uniformly to every member of the CLASS;
27 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of
28 each member of the CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all other Class Members,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-6-
 1 was not correctly compensated for all hours worked in the discharge of his
2 duties because of VERIZON’s company policies and practices.
3 PLAINTIFF sustained economic injuries arising from VERIZON’s
4 violations of the laws of California. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
5 are similarly or identically harmed by the same unfair, deceptive, unlawful
6 and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by VERIZON; and,
7 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and
8 protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who are
9 competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no
10 material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF
11 and the Class Members that would make class certification inappropriate.
12 Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all Class
13 Members.
14 15. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action
15 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
16 Section 382, in that:
17 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
18 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of
19 separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the risk
20 of:
21 (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
22 members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible
23 standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; or,
24 (ii) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS
25 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the
26 other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair
27 or impede their ability to protect their interests;
28 (b) The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-7-
 1 applicable to the CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with
2 respect to the CLASS as a whole in that VERIZON’s company policies
3 and practices failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and
4 failed to properly apply the overtime rate of pay applicable to all hours
5 worked in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any
6 workweek; and,
7 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class Members and
8 predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and
9 Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
10 efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:
11 (i) The interests of the members of the CLASS in individually
12 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
13 (ii) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
14 already commenced by or against members of the CLASS;
15 (iii) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of
16 the claims in the particular forum;
17 (iv) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a
18 Class Action; and,
19 (v) The basis of VERIZON’s policies and practices uniformly applied
20 to all Class Members.
21 16. This Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant
22 to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, because:
23 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over
24 any question affecting only individual members;
25 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and
26 efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS;
27 (c) The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all
28 Class Members before the Court;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-8-
 1 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain effective
2 and economic legal redress unless the Action is maintained as a Class
3 Action;
4 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
5 equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other
6 improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages
7 and injuries which VERIZON’s actions have inflicted upon the CLASS;
8 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and
9 available insurance of VERIZON are sufficient to adequately compensate
10 the members of the CLASS for any injuries sustained;
11 (g) VERIZON has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable
12 to the CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief appropriate with
13 respect to the CLASS as a whole; and,
14 (h) The Class Members are readily ascertainable from the business records of
15 VERIZON. The CLASS consists of all of VERIZON’s non-exempt,
16 hourly employees who were subject to the above described uniform
17 policies and practices in California during the applicable time period.
18
19 JURISDICTION & VENUE
20 17. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to the California Code of
21 Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
22 17203. This Action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated employees
23 of VERIZON pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382.
24 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
25 Sections 395 and 395.5, because VERIZON (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times
26 maintained offices and facilities in this County, and (ii) committed the wrongful conduct
27 herein alleged in this County against members of the CLASS.
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-9-
 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
3 [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.]
4 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
5 19. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
6 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint.
7 20. DEFENDANT is a "persons" as that term is defined under the California
8 Business & Professions Code, Section 17021.
9 21. Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair
10 competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200
11 applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes
12 injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as
13 follows:
14 Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair
competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court
15 may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as
may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice
16 which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be
necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or
17 personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
18 22. By the conduct alleged herein, VERIZON’s uniform policies and practices
19 violated and continue to violate California law, and specifically provisions of the Wage Orders,
20 the California Labor Code, including Sections 201, 202, 204, 204.3, 206.5, 210, 510 and 1198,
21 and the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 11010 and 11040, for which this Court
22 should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
23 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
24 23. By the conduct alleged herein, VERIZON’s practices were unfair in that these
25 practices violate public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially
26 injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this Court should
27 issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business &
28 Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-10-
 1 24. By the conduct alleged herein, VERIZON’s practices were deceptive and
2 fraudulent in that VERIZON’s uniform practice was to represent to its employees that they were
3 not entitled to compensation for all hours worked, when in fact these representations were false
4 and likely to deceive, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant
5 to Section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code, including restitution of
6 wages wrongfully withheld.
7 25. By and through the unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,
8 VERIZON has obtained valuable property, money, and services from the PLAINTIFF, and from
9 the Class Members, and has deprived them of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law
10 and contract, all to the detriment of the employees and to the benefit of DEFENDANT so as to
11 allow DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law.
12 26. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California
13 Labor Code, California Code of Regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
14 Orders, are unlawful and in violation of public policy; and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
15 and unscrupulous, are deceptive, and thereby constitute unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
16 practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq.
17 DEFENDANT’s conduct was also deceptive in that DEFENDANT represented to the
18 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members that they were not entitled to receive wages for all hours
19 worked, including wages for compensable work time off the clock before the start of the
20 employees’ shifts.
21 27. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are entitled to, and do, seek such relief as
22 may be necessary to restore to them the money and property which DEFENDANT has acquired,
23 or of which the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have been deprived, by means of the
24 above described unlawful and unfair business practices.
25 28. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are further entitled to, and do, seek a
26 declaration that the above described business practices are unfair and unlawful and that an
27 injunctive relief should be issued restraining VERIZON from engaging in any of these unfair
28 and unlawful business practices in the future.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-11-
 1 29. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have no plain, speedy, and/or adequate
2 remedy at law that will end the unfair and unlawful business practices of VERIZON. Further,
3 the practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated. As a result of the unfair and
4 unlawful business practices described herein, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have
5 suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless VERIZON is restrained from
6 continuing to engage in these unfair and unlawful business practices. In addition, compensation
7 to the PLAINTIFF as well as to the other members of the CLASS.
8
9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10 For Failure To Pay Straight Time and Overtime Wages
11 [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204.3 210, 218, 510, 1194 & 1198]
12 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
13 30. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
14 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint.
15 31. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, bring a claim for DEFENDANT’s willful
16 and intentional violations of the California Labor Code, Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 510,
17 515, 558, 1198, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040 for
18 DEFENDANT’s failure to correctly pay them wages earned for all hours worked, including
19 hours worked in excess of eight (8) per workday and/or forty (40) per workweek.
20 32. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 204, other applicable laws and
21 regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked.
22 Labor Code Section 201 and 202 require DEFENDANT to pay all wages due to an employee
23 whose employment terminated.
24 33. California Labor Code Section 510 further provides that employees in California
25 shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40) hours per
26 workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts
27 specified by law.
28 34. California Labor Code Section 1194 establishes an employee's right to recover

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-12-
 1 unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs
2 of suit. Section 1198 of the California Labor Code states that the employment of an employee
3 for longer hours than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.
4 35. During the CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON maintained a uniform wage practice
5 of paying the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, without regard to the actual number of
6 hours they worked. As set forth herein, DEFENDANT’s policy and practice was to
7 intentionally and uniformly deny timely payment of wages due PLAINTIFF and the Class
8 Members, and VERIZON in fact failed to pay these employees for all hours worked.
9 36. VERIZON's uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices manifested,
10 without limitation, applicable to the CLASS as a whole by implementing a uniform policy and
11 systematic practice that denied compensation to the Class Members, including the PLAINTIFF,
12 for all hours worked, including compensable work time off the clock.
13 37. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, VERIZON
14 inaccurately under-reported the actual time worked and VERIZON underpaid the actual amount
15 of hours worked, in violation of California Labor Code Section 206.5. VERIZON acted in an
16 illegal attempt to avoid payment of earned wages, overtime compensation and other benefits in
17 violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements, and
18 other applicable laws and regulations.
19 38. As a direct result of VERIZON’s unlawful wage practices as alleged herein,
20 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members did not receive adequate compensation for all the hours
21 they actually worked for VERIZON’s benefit.
22 39. California Labor Code Section 515 sets out various categories of employees who
23 are exempt from the overtime requirements of the law. None of these exemptions are applicable
24 to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and
25 the Class Members, were classified by DEFENDANT as non-exempt from overtime and
26 performed non-exempt job duties.
27 40. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were
28 classified as non-exempt from overtime by VERIZON. None of the exemptions are applicable

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-13-
 1 to the CLASS based on their job duties. Further, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are
2 not subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that would preclude the causes of action
3 contained herein this Complaint. Rather, the PLAINTIFF brings this Action on behalf of
4 himself and all the other Class Members based on DEFENDANT’s violations of non-negotiable,
5 non-waiveable rights provided by the state of California.
6 41. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked
7 more hours than they were paid for and/or were paid less for hours worked that they were
8 entitled to, constituting a failure to pay all earned wages. During the CLASS PERIOD, the
9 PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, regularly worked off the clock.
10 42. DEFENDANT failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
11 wages for all the hours they actually worked, including hours in excess of the maximum hours
12 permissible by law as required by the California Labor Code, Sections 204, 510 and 1198, even
13 though the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were regularly required to work, and did in fact
14 work, hours that VERIZON never recorded, as evidenced by VERIZON’s business records and
15 witnessed by employees.
16 43. By virtue of DEFENDANT's unlawful failure to pay compensation to the
17 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members accurately for the true number of hours they worked, the
18 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic
19 injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which will be ascertained
20 according to proof at trial.
21 44. During the CLASS PERIOD, VERIZON knew or should have known that the
22 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CLASS worked hours that they were not compensated for.
23 VERIZON systematically elected, either through intentional malfeasance or gross nonfeasance,
24 not to pay employees the correct amount for their labor as a matter of uniform corporate policy,
25 practice and procedure, and to perpetrate this systematic scheme, VERIZON refused to
26 compensate employees for compensable work time off the clock before the start of the
27 employees’ scheduled shifts.
28 45. In performing the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of labor laws and

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-14-
 1 refusing to compensate the Class Members for all the hours they worked and provide the
2 requisite overtime compensation, VERIZON acted and continues to act intentionally,
3 oppressively, and maliciously toward the PLAINTIFF, and toward the Class Members, with a
4 conscious of and utter disregard for their legal rights, or the consequences to them, and with the
5 despicable intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights, and otherwise causing
6 them injury in order to increase corporate profits at the expense of the PLAINTIFF and the
7 Class Members.
8 46. VERIZON’s respective failure to accurately record the hours worked by the
9 CLASS and pay the proper amount of compensation to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
10 violates IWC Wage Orders No. 1 and 4 and the California Labor Code, Sections 201, 202, 204,
11 206.5, 210, 218, 510, 1194 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
12 47. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, request recovery of unpaid
13 overtime compensation according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment
14 of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANT, in a sum as provided by the California Labor
15 Code and/or other applicable statutes. In addition, to the extent wages are determined to be
16 owed to the PLAINTIFF and Class Members whose employment has terminated, these
17 employees are further entitled to waiting time penalties under Section 203 of the California
18 Labor Code, which are sought herein.
19
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements
22 [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]
23 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
24 48. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
25 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.
26 49. Pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 226, an employer must furnish
27 employees with an "accurate itemized statement in writing" showing all of the following items:
28 (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-15-
 1 compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under
2 subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
3 (3) the number of piecerate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid
4 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of
5 the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive
6 dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her
7 social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her
8 social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number
9 may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the
10 employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
11 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. See California
12 Labor Code § 226.
13 50. At all relevant times mentioned herein, VERIZON violated California Labor
14 Code Section 226 with respect to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, without limitation,
15 in that VERIZON inaccurately or completely failed to record and report all the hours they
16 actually worked on their paystubs as well as their gross wages earned.
17 51. This failure was the result of VERIZON’s intentional refusal to pay the
18 employees for all hours worked, including compensable work time off the clock, and this
19 miscalculation of the applicable regular rate as herein alleged.
20 52. VERIZON knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with California Labor
21 Code Section 226, causing damages to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. These damages
22 include, but are not limited to, unpaid wages for all hours actually worked, the costs expended
23 calculating the true hours worked and the amount of employment taxes which were not properly
24 paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages may be difficult to estimate. Therefore,
25 the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, may recover liquidated damages of $50.00 for the
26 initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and $100.00 for each violation in subsequent
27 pay period pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226, in an amount according to proof at
28 the time of trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00 for the PLAINTIFF and each respective

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-16-
 1 member of the CLASS herein), plus statutory costs, pursuant to California Labor Code Section
2 226(g).
3
4 PRAYER
5 WHEREFOR, the PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly
6 and severally, as follows:
7 1. On behalf of the CLASS:
8 A) That the Court certify action asserted by the CLASS as a Class Action
9 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382;
10 B) An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining
11 DEFENDANT from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein;
12 C) An order requiring DEFENDANT to pay all sums unlawfully withheld from
13 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS;
14 D) Disgorgement of DEFENDANT’s ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for
15 restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANT’s violations due to
16 PLAINTIFF and to the Class Members;
17 E) Penalties payable to all terminated employees in the CLASS in accordance
18 with Cal. Lab. Code § 203; and,
19 F) The greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay
20 period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per each
21 member of the CLASS for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not
22 exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and an
23 award of costs for violations of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
24 2. On all claims:
25 A) An award of interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate;
26 B) An award of penalties and cost of suit, but neither this prayer nor any other
27 allegation or prayer in this Complaint is to be construed as a request, under
28 any circumstance, that would result in a request for attorneys’ fees under Cal.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-17-