Call Center Industry and Wage and Hour Violations

Call Center Employees Affected by Wage Theft

In today’s age of technology and convenience, customer service is often only a phone call or instant message away. With an increasing consumer demand for faster support and quicker turnaround times, it seems that more industries than ever have turned to call centers as a means to provide streamlined service to their customers. Call center employees are essential service providers for customers in need of guidance. Sadly, mistreatment is common.

Unfortunately for Customer Service Representatives (“CSRs”), call centers are one of the most common places for companies to commit wage violations, These violations can be accidental or intentional, depending on the centers management. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), covered nonexempt employees are entitled to receive minimum wage for all hours worked, and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Today, numerous call centers across a variety of business channels call central Ohio home, including Teleperformance, Call Management Resources, ContactUS Communications, and Total Quality Logistics all operate facilities in the Columbus area. Nationwide, Verizon, DISH, JPMorgan Chase, and Randstad also operate centers in the surrounding vicinity.

FLSA Violations and Call Centers

When centers expect their employees to perform unpaid “off-the-clock” work, problems arise. This type of work is a direct violation of the FLSA. Call center employees must receive paid for time spent performing everyday duties. These duties include:

  • turning on/off computers
  • logging in to programs
  • making pre- or post-call notes
  • attending work-related meetings
  • working through lunch
  • participating in work-related training

If you work in a call center and are not being properly paid wages you have earned, an attorney can help. You can call for a free consultation at 800-274-5927. You may have a viable claim and we can help you determine the best course of action. The team at Barkan Meizlish, LLP is here to help.


originally published on March 13th, 2018

New Year Marks Ohio’s Minimum Wage Increase

On Monday, January 1, 2018, approximately 150,000 Ohio workers received a pay raise. The state’s minimum wage rate increased to $8.30 an hour, up 15 cents from last year.  The $8.30 is now $1.05 above the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour.

For tipped employees, such as waiters and bartenders, the minimum wage rate also increased from $4.08 to $4.15.

Ohio is one of 18 states that ushered in the New Year with minimum wage increases. The change is the result of a state constitutional amendment passed in 2006, which automatically adjusts Ohio’s minimum wage rate each year according to inflation rates.

Lawyers watch wage-and-hour activity pick up as lawsuits proliferate

Business First of Columbus – by Cindy Bent Findlay For Business First

Friday, December 8, 2006

The law is clear on many wage-and-hour employment issues, but it seems many employers are still confused. And lawyers are becoming
more aware of the potential for recovery after a few well-publicized, large settlements and awards in class-action wage-and-hour cases.
As a result, class-action and collective wage-and-hour lawsuits are proliferating rapidly in federal and state courts, say attorneys for
employees and employers.
“I don’t think there is any increase in instances where employers are running afoul of these statutes. I’d say lawyers are getting a better
understanding of individuals’ rights,” says Bob DeRose, a partner at Barkan Neff Handelman Meizlish LLP in Columbus.
DeRose, a plaintiffs’ attorney whose firm has multiple wage-and-hour cases pending in Ohio and federal courts, says he sees the suits
spawning from many industries and just about in every form.
Wage-and-hour issues
Misclassification of who should be exempt from overtime pay and how overtime is calculated are typical examples.
“Years ago people thought if they were paid a salary, that fact alone meant they were not entitled to overtime for hours worked over 40,”
says John Marshall, whose Columbus firm, Marshall & Morrow LLC, also represents plaintiffs.
“We’re getting an increasing number of calls from people who are concerned about whether they should be paid overtime because of
increased public consciousness about the subject.”
Marshall has helped plaintiffs file wage-and-hour suits in Ohio and federal courts, including a case where technicians alleged that Digital
Dish, a satellite television company based in the Holmes County town of Millersburg, did not pay overtime or a legal minimum wage for
hours worked during training days. The case is pending in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Other pending Ohio cases include complaints against Lowe’s Home Centers claiming the giant hardware retailer improperly calculated
overtime for certain managers in Ohio stores.
Wage-and-hour lawsuits are not new, but more are being filed as collective or class actions.
Some defense attorneys quietly complain that plaintiffs’ attorneys have simply seized on the issue as the newest frontier in which to wield
highly profitable class-action lawsuits as weapons against employers.
“This is a place where the legal community hasn’t paid great attention, but it seems like employers are either negligently or in some cases
intentionally not following the law, and that’s part of the reason there’s more activity – the legal community’s eyes and ears are now open
about it. In my opinion, that’s a good thing,” says Marshall.
Rules have changed
Congress changed rules on what types of employees are exempt from overtime pay eligibility in 2004, creating some fluidity in this area of
labor law. But some say a spike in cases was coming before those changes because of the complicated nature of wage-and-hour law.
“I’ve known people at the wage-and-hour division of the federal government who feel comfortable they can walk into almost any place and
find some technical violation somewhere,” says Douglas Paul, an employment attorney with Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs LLP’s
Cleveland office.
Marshall said there are cases in which employers who docked the pay of salaried employees for missed attendance suddenly face paying
those same employees overtime, because docking their pay changed the employees’ exempt status.
Overtime cases building
The cases are rippling over more industries in an increasing wave, says Mark Knueve, partner in the Columbus office of Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease LLP.
In addition to the retail industry, Knueve says he’s observed cases in the financial, health-care and insurance industries in which relatively
high-salaried employees are disputing overtime pay and other wage-and-hour issues.
“It’s on the radar screen of most labor and employment lawyers where five years ago I don’t think we would have been involved in many, if any, overtime cases,” says Marshall, whose firm is handling many cases of this type.
Lawyers say there seems to be no end in sight to employment cases and that Ohio is no exception to the trend.
“The bigger these cases get, the more chance for recovery of substantial fees, the more likely we are to see these,” says Paul.

Cindy Bent Findlay is a freelance writer in Columbus.
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved

Widow to Collect Benefits After Husband’s Death

The widow of a worker who died in Ohio after hours his workplace injury should receive more than 23 years’ worth of workers’ compensation benefits for the lost use of his limbs, sight and hearing from the time of his injury to his death a few hours later, an Ohio appellate court has ruled. Dhimitraq Taluri, 63, worked for Lakewood, Ohio-based Arberia L.L.C. and died in October 2011 after he reportedly fell 30 feet through a roof while performing demolition work, court records show. Mr. Taluri initially survived the fall with severe injuries to his brain and skull, but died 4½ hours later at a nearby hospital.

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation granted workers compensation death benefits to Mr. Taluri’s widow. Ms. Taluri later filed a motion seeking an award for loss of use of Mr. Taluri’s arms, legs, eyes and ears caused by his fall in the hours prior to his death. Arberia appealed, arguing in part that Ohio law would limit the award for the loss or Mr. Taluri’s limbs, sight and hearing to one week of benefits since he only lived for a few hours after his work accident.

However, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals in Columbus unanimously overruled Arberia’s objections and upheld the benefits award to Ms. Taluri. The court found that Mr. Taluri qualified for loss-of-use benefits before his death that could be awarded in a lump sum payment. The court also held that, partial disability benefit awards are based on the life expectancy of a claimant’s surviving spouse and other dependents, not on the life span of the deceased claimant.


Positive Drug Test Does Not Necessarily Bar Workers’ Compensation

Workers Comp Drug Test Ohio

Recently, an Ohio appeals court ruled that a worker who tested positive for marijuana after a workplace accident was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant was injured when a piece of steel fell on his legs. The claimant was unable to complete the urine drug screen at the hospital, so one was performed approximately one week after the accident.

The drug screen indicated that the claimant tested positive for marijuana metabolite. Regardless, the Industrial Commission of Ohio allowed his claim for workers’ comp benefits. The Employer appealed.

The claimant argued that because marijuana metabolites can remain present in the body well beyond the six-day period between the claimants hospital visit and urine screen, there is no way to show when the claimant may have used marijuana. The employer argued that an employee having marijuana in his system at all violated a workplace rule regarding prohibited drugs. However, on appeal Ohio’s 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed the Stark County Common Pleas Court, reasoning that the claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, unless his drug use was the proximate cause of the injury. In this case, that was not proven.


Talk with an Experienced Lawyer Today

Fill out the form below to get started.