Suit claims Cox Communications installers weren’t paid OT

By Steve Green (contact)

Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009 | 12:09 p.m.

Another lawsuit claiming workers were shorted on overtime pay has been filed in Las Vegas, this one targeting Cox Communications Inc. and its installation contractors.

A lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed Tuesday in Clark County District Court on behalf of installer Joseph Valdez against Cox, VIP Installs Inc., Quality Communications Inc., Sierra Communications Co. and Paradigm Communications Inc.

Attorneys Leon Greenberg and Christian Gabroy charge in the lawsuit that the defendants have developed a "piecework, no overtime" system that deprives installers of overtime pay in violation of Nevada law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendants have not yet formally responded to the complaint, and Cox officials in Las Vegas on Thursday said they could not comment on any active proceedings or court action.

The attorneys claim Cox, acting as a general contractor, exerted control over the installation contractors.

The suit claims the defendants listed overtime hours and overtime compensation on pay stubs that were inaccurate in terms of the hours actually worked and didn't reflect an attempt to pay the workers time and one-half for overtime hours.

The attorneys say the defendants' overtime payments were based on "completely fictitious and knowingly false 'regular rates' that were concocted by the defendants."

The suit seeks back pay of overtime allegedly owed to the installers employed by the defendants within the past three years, as well as unspecified damages.

Court records show similar lawsuits are pending around the country in state and federal courts claiming overtime is owed by numerous companies to installers of cable television, Internet, telephone and satellite TV services.

On Monday, with Atlanta-based Cox and its contractor denying any wrongdoing, a settlement was finalized in a similar overtime lawsuit filed in federal court in Connecticut.

Two installers in that case said a Cox subsidiary in New England and the installers' employer, M & M Communications Inc. of Warwick, R.I., had improperly classified the installers as independent contractors and failed to pay them all the overtime pay they were due.

Under the settlement, the installers were paid overtime they claimed to be owed over a two-year period.

The Connecticut case was initially filed as a proposed class-action. But it was settled without the plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to proceed as a class action.

Court papers in that case showed extensive litigation would be necessary if the case proceeded as a class-action and that many of the issues pending around the country would have been explored.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and M & M told the court that such issues included "whether the plaintiffs were properly classified as independent contractors, whether Cox may be properly considered as the plaintiffs' employer, whether the defendants acted in good faith in classifying the plaintiffs as independent contractors and whether the plaintiffs can establish a willful violation of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)."