- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Law Offices of

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 274-1100

Ty D. Frankel (AZ Bar No. 027179)

tfrankel@bffb.com

Law Offices of

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

600 W. Broadway, Suite 900

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 756-7748

Patricia N. Syverson (AZ Bar No. 020191)

psyverson@bffb.com

Law Offices of 

DEVON K. ROEPCKE, PC

170 Laurel Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 940-5357

Devon K. Roepcke (AZ Bar No. 028495)

droepcke@lawdkr.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Saunders,

Plaintiff,

v.

Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. ____________________

COLLECTIVE ACTION AND 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 13
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff James Saunders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) for his Complaint against Defendant Safelite 

Fulfillment, Inc. (“Safelite”) alleges as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Safelite for its unlawful failure to pay 

overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 

(hereinafter “FLSA”) and its unlawful failure to pay wages due in violation of the Arizona 

Wage Statute, A.R.S. §§ 23-351-353, and 23-355.

2. This action is brought as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and 

damages owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. This lawsuit is also brought as 

a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to recover unpaid compensation 

and treble damages resulting from Safelite’s violations of the Arizona Wage Statute. For

collective action and class action purposes, the proposed Class consists of:

All current and former Safelite sales employees who worked at 

a Safelite call center in Arizona during the Liability Period 

(“Class Members”). 

3. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action (the “Liability 

Period”), Safelite had and continues to have a consistent policy and practice of suffering 

or permitting sales employees who earned commissions and shift differentials, including 

Plaintiff, to work well in excess of forty (40) hours per week, without paying them proper 

overtime compensation as required by federal and state wage and hour laws. Plaintiff 

seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, including interest thereon, statutory 

penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs on behalf of himself and all 

similarly situated Class Members. Plaintiff and all similarly situated Class Members who 

may opt-in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) also seek liquidated damages.

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 13
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Plaintiff intends to request the Court authorize notice to all similarly situated 

persons informing them of the pendency of the action and their right to “opt-into” this 

lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of seeking overtime compensation 

and liquidated damages under federal law.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6. Plaintiff’s state law claim is sufficiently related to the FLSA claim that it 

forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claim under the Arizona Wage Statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because 

all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the 

State of Arizona within this District. Plaintiff was employed by Safelite in this District.

III. PARTIES

8. At all times relevant to the matters alleged herein, Plaintiff James Saunders

resided in the State of Arizona in Maricopa County.

9. Plaintiff is a full-time, non-exempt employee of Safelite employed at 

Safelite’s “Contact Center” a call center in Chandler, Arizona beginning in or around 

August 27, 2012 and continuing until the present.

10. Plaintiff was initially paid an hourly wage of $10.32 per hour plus nondiscretionary incentive pay, which the company terms a “commission,” every week. 

Throughout his employment Plaintiff has received various raises. In early January of 

2017, his hourly rate was increased to $12.83.

11. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), attached to and filed with this Complaint as 

Exhibit A, is the Consent to Become Party Plaintiff and Opt In to Lawsuit, signed by the 

above-named Representative Plaintiff, James Saunders, opting him into this lawsuit.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is an Ohio

corporation authorized to do business in Arizona. 

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 13
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Safelite hires employees like Plaintiff at its Arizona call center to service the 

company’s customers.

14. Plaintiff and the other similarly Safelite employees are employees as defined 

in 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1) and are non-exempt employees under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and 

A.R.S. § 23-350(2).

15. At all relevant times, Safelite was an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d) and A.R.S. § 350(3).

16. At all relevant times, Safelite has been engaged in interstate commerce and 

has been an enterprise whose gross annual volume of sales made or business done is 

greater than $500,000. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17. Safelite provides auto glass repair and replacement to customers throughout 

the United States. 

18. Safelite employs hundreds of employees at its call center location in Arizona

to sell auto glass repair and replacement services, and provide general customer service. 

19. Plaintiff has been employed by Safelite in a sales role at its Chandler, 

Arizona call center from on or around August 27, 2012 until the present. 

20. Safelite has customers nationwide, who typically call in to Safelite’s call 

center for assistance with auto glass repair and replacement. 

21. Plaintiff’s responsibilities generally consist of fielding telephone calls from 

individuals with auto glass needs.

22. Plaintiff receives incoming calls from potential consumers needing auto 

glass repair or replacement. He then schedules the necessary service to be performed by a

technician working at one of Safelite’s many Auto Glass Shops. During the phone call, 

Plaintiff can also sell the customer new wiper blades to be installed at the time the glass 

service is performed.

23. Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage of $10.32 when he first started working 

for Safelite and his hourly wage eventually increased to $12.83.

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 13
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. Plaintiff receives additional non-discretionary incentive bonuses for the 

following: (1) sales incentive pay for meeting or exceeding company sales and retention 

goals; (2) phone statistic incentive pay meeting or exceeding company phone statistic 

goals; and (3) wiper blade incentive pay meeting or exceeding company wiper blade sales 

goals. When it is earned, this non-discretionary incentive pay is paid out every week on 

Plaintiff’s paycheck under the code “Comm TSR.”

25. For the purposes of Plaintiff’s sales incentive pay, customers are divided 

into three categories: “commercial,” “insurance,” and “cash.” Safelite sets different 

numerical sales goals for each of these groups.

26. “Commercial” customers include mechanic shops, trucking companies, and 

rental car fleets. “Commercial” customers are considered the easiest sales to close. For 

this reason, sales employees need to meet a high percentage of sales and retention to 

receive a small percentage of their sales in this category.

27. “Insurance” customers have been referred to Safelite by their insurance 

company and their replacement is going to be covered, so they are fairly likely to book 

with Safelite, but since they could choose to use a different company, the sales and 

retention goals for this category are slightly lower than those for “commercial” customers.

28. “Cash” customers are not going through insurance and have no obligation to 

use Safelite, so they are considered the hardest sale to close. As such, the sales and 

retention goals are lowest, and the bonus percentage is highest for “cash” customers.

29. If Plaintiff meets Safelite’s numerical sales goal for any of the customer 

groups, “commercial,” “insurance,” or “cash”, and beats the average sales number of his 

co-workers for that customer group, he receives a set percentage of the sales he made to

that customer group.

30. For example if the sales goal for “cash” customers is to make sales in 45% 

of incoming “cash” customer calls, and the retention goal is 80%, meaning that 80% of the 

“cash” customers booked complete the services, Plaintiff will receive a 2% commission 

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 5 of 13
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on all of his “cash” sales if he meets or exceeds the sales and retention goals set by 

Safelite, and beats the sales and retention average among his co-workers. 

31. Plaintiff also receives incentive pay for selling wiper blades to customers as 

he schedules their services. If he sells wiper blades to 20% of the customers he schedules 

for service, he receives $1.50 in incentive pay for each wiper blade sold.

32. Plaintiff’s incentive pay, termed a “Comm TSR” on his pay check, consists

of less than one half of overall earnings during the typical pay period.

33. In addition to sales incentive pay, Safelite also has a practice of paying its 

employees a shift differential for certain hours they work, including overnight, early 

morning, and weekend hours. Safelite Employees receive a shift differential of $0.25 per 

hour for each hour worked between 3:00 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.. Safelite Employees receive 

a shift differential of $0.50 per hour for each hour worked between 11:00 p.m. and 6:59 

a.m.. Safelite Employees receive a shift differential of $0.75 per hour for each hour 

worked between 7:00 a.m. on Saturday and 6:59 a.m. Monday. Shift differentials can 

aggregate, so an employee working between 11:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. on a Saturday 

would receive both the $0.50 and $0.75 per hour shift differentials for each hour worked. 

This non-discretionary incentive pay is paid out every week on Plaintiff’s paycheck under 

the code “Cc Shift Diff.” 

34. In addition to sales incentive pay and shift differentials, Safelite pays its 

employees quarterly and annual bonuses, which are non-discretionary. In order to receive 

this bonus, the employee has to have achieved certain goals for the quarter or year period

in which the payment is made. If an employee qualifies for the bonus, the amount of the 

bonus is based on the number of hours the employee worked during the applicable period. 

When it is earned, this non-discretionary incentive pay is paid out on a separate check

under the code “Ic Corp Hourly.”

35. Plaintiff routinely works in excess of forty (40) hours per week as part of his 

regular schedule. For example, during the typical week, Plaintiff is scheduled to work

four ten hour shifts. His regular schedule is Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 6 of 13
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

each week from 5:00 a.m to 3:30 p.m., or from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff is expected 

to prepare his workspace before he starts his shift, and clean up his workspace after his 

shift ends. Plaintiff is allowed to be clocked in five minutes before his shift starts and five

minutes after his shift ends to complete these tasks, which means that even if he is only 

scheduled to work forty (40) hours in a week, he will usually accrue some overtime. 

36. Additionally, it is not uncommon for plaintiff to be scheduled to work 

overtime shifts. Some such weeks, Plaintiff works between twenty (20) and thirty-five 

(35) overtime hours.

37. Over the course of his employment, Plaintiff has worked hundreds of hours 

of overtime.

38. When Safelite pays Plaintiff overtime for his hours in excess of forty (40) it 

calculates his overtime rate as one and one half of his regular hourly rate of pay. Safelite 

fails to factor in Plaintiff’s non-discretionary incentive pay, termed “Comm TSR,” and 

shift differentials, termed “Cc Shift Diff,” into his overtime rate in violation of the FLSA.

39. For example, Plaintiff’s pay statement for the week of March 12, 2016 

through March 18, 2016 indicates that he worked 75.52 hours that week. Plaintiff was 

paid for 35.52 hours of overtime based on one and one-half of his regular hourly rate of 

$12.83 per hour for that pay period. Safelite did not factor into his regular rate the $468.08

he earned in incentive pay, termed “Comm TSR,” on his pay statement for that pay period, 

or the $28.48 shift differential payment, termed “Cc Shift Diff,” thereby failing to 

properly calculate his overtime rate in violation of the FLSA. If Safelite had properly 

calculated Plaintiff’s overtime, his overtime rate for that week would have been $26.38 

instead of $16.51. Safelite’s failure to properly calculate Plaintiff’s overtime rate caused 

him to be underpaid $116.78 for this week. See Exhibit B. 

40. Plaintiff’s duties, hours and compensation are indicative of the similarly 

situated employees.

41. Safelite’s improper policies and compensation practices apply to Plaintiff 

and all similarly situated employees he purports to represent. 

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 7 of 13
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. For example, Safelite provided its employees, including Plaintiff, with 

written policies and procedures uniformly applicable to all employees governing the 

compensation practices applicable to them. 

43. All of Safelite’s employees are uniformly subject to the same unlawful

compensation practices that Plaintiff is subject to through his employment at Safelite.

V. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

44. Plaintiff brings his claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., as a 

collective action. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly 

situated, properly defined in paragraph 2 above. 

45. Safelite’s illegal overtime wage practices were widespread with respect to 

the proposed Class. The failure to pay proper overtime was not the result of random or 

isolated individual management decisions or practices. 

46. Safelite’s overtime wage practices were routine and consistent. Throughout 

the Liability Period, employees regularly were not paid the proper overtime wage despite 

working in excess of forty hours per week.

47. Other Safelite employees performed the same or similar job duties as 

Plaintiff. Moreover, these employees regularly worked more than forty hours in a 

workweek. Accordingly, the employees victimized by Safelite’s unlawful pattern and 

practices are similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of employment and pay provisions.

48. Safelite’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by the 

FLSA result from generally applicable policies or practices and do not depend on the 

personal circumstances of the members of the collective action. Thus, Plaintiff’s 

experience is typical of the experience of the others employed by Safelite.

49. All Safelite employees, including Plaintiff, regardless of their precise job 

requirements or rates of pay, are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in 

excess of forty (40). Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there 

is no detraction from the common nucleus of facts pertaining to liability.

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 8 of 13
- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

50. The state law claims under the Arizona Wage Statute are brought as a class 

action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Class is defined in 

paragraph 2 above.

51. Throughout the Liability Period, Safelite has employed hundreds of Safelite

employees in Arizona. The Class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Members of the Class can readily be identified from business records 

maintained by Safelite.

52. Proof of Safelite’s liability under the Arizona Wage Statute involves factual 

and legal questions common to the Class. Whether Defendants paid Class members the 

proper wages due in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 23-351, 23-353, 23-355 is a question 

common to all Class members.

53. Like Plaintiff, all Class members worked without being paid statutorily 

required wages. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore typical of the claims of the Class.

54. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of other Class members and has 

retained attorneys who are knowledgeable in wage and hour and class action litigation. 

The interests of Class members are therefore fairly and adequately protected.

55. This action is maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) because 

questions of law or fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting 

only individual members.

56. In addition, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Arizona Wage Statute recognizes that 

employees who are denied their wages often lack the ability to enforce their rights against 

employers with far superior resources. Further, because the damages suffered by 

individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual 

litigation makes it difficult for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs 

done to them.

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 9 of 13
- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57. Plaintiff’s Arizona Wage Statute claim is easily managed as a class action. 

The issue of liability is common to all Class members. Although the amount of damages 

may differ by individual, the damages are objectively ascertainable and can be 

straightforwardly calculated.

VII. COUNT ONE

(Failure to Properly Pay Overtime Wages and Record Keeping Violations - FLSA -

29 U.S.C. § 207 et seq.)

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

59. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to the statutorily mandated 

overtime pay according to the FLSA.

60. Safelite was an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

61. Safelite failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 207 because Plaintiff worked for 

Safelite in excess of forty hours per week, but Safelite failed to pay Plaintiff for those 

excess hours at the statutorily required rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff’s regular 

rate of pay as required by the FLSA.

62. Safelite’s failure to pay overtime to Plaintiff at the proper rate was willful. 

Safelite knew Plaintiff was working overtime but failed to pay overtime wages at the 

proper rate. Safelite had no reason to believe its failure to pay overtime at the proper rate

was not a violation of the FLSA.

63. At all relevant times, Safelite willfully, regularly, and repeatedly failed, and 

continues to fail to make, keep, and preserve accurate time records required by the FLSA 

with respect to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Safelite employees, including 

records sufficient to accurately determine the wages and hours of employment pertaining 

to Plaintiff and the employees. 

64. Plaintiff is entitled to statutory remedies provided pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), including but not limited to liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 10 of 13
- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VIII. COUNT TWO

(Failure to Pay Timely Wages Due - Arizona Wage Statute)

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

66. Safelite was aware of its obligation to pay timely wages pursuant to A.R.S. § 

23-351.

67. Safelite was aware that, under A.R.S. §§ 23-351-353, it was obligated to pay 

all wages due to Plaintiff.

68. Safelite failed to timely pay Plaintiff wages he was due without a good faith 

basis for withholding the wages.

69. Safelite has willfully failed and refused to timely pay all wages due to 

Plaintiff. As a result of Safelite’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to the statutory 

remedies provided pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355.

IX. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

prays:

A. For the Court to order Safelite to file with this Court and furnish to 

Plaintiff’s counsel a list of the names and addresses of the all Class Members;

B. For the Court to authorize Plaintiff’s counsel to issue notice at the earliest 

possible time to the Class Members, informing them that this action has been filed and the 

nature of the action, and of their right to opt-into this lawsuit if they worked hours in 

excess of forty (40) hours in a week during the Liability Period, but were not paid 

overtime at the rate required by the FLSA;

C. For the Court to declare and find that Safelite committed one or more of the 

following acts:

i. violated overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, by failing 

to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and persons similarly situated who opt-into this action;

ii. willfully violated overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207;

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 11 of 13
- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iii. willfully violated the Arizona Wage Statute by failing to timely pay 

all wages due to Plaintiff;

D. For the Court to award compensatory damages, including liquidated 

damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and/or treble damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-

355, to be determined at trial; 

E. For the Court to award interest on all overtime compensation due accruing 

from the date such amounts were due;

F. For the Court to award such other monetary, injunctive, equitable, and 

declaratory relief as the Court deems just and proper; 

G. For the Court to award restitution;

H. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

I. For the Court to award pre- and post-judgment interest;

J. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s resulting consequential damages, in an 

amount to be proven at trial; and

K. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 12 of 13
- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

X. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

70. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, hereby 

demands trial of his claims by jury to the extent authorized by law.

DATED: October 25, 2017

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

& BALINT, P.C.

Ty D. Frankel

Ty D. Frankel

2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 274-1100

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & 

BALINT, P.C.

Patricia N. Syverson

600 W. Broadway, Suite 900

San Diego, California 92101

Law Offices of 

DEVON K. ROEPCKE, PC

Devon K. Roepcke

170 Laurel Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 940-5357

droepcke@lawdkr.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 13 of 13