550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, California 91203
(818-547-5200) | (626-795-0205)

Compucom


Update - April 7, 2017 - Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Granted!

Some background.  We had first contacted CompuCom a year ago in February, 2016, notifying them of the case.  Two months later, another similar case was filed against CompuCom (without CompuCom informing us of that fact), on April 26, 2016, by plaintiff Robert Nunez, Sr..  

As soon as we learned of that filing, our case was filed on August 4, 2016.  Fortunately, we were able to work with Mr. Nunez's attorneys on behalf of CompuCom's employees.

As a result of negotiations of both our firm and that of Mr. Nunez, the Lewis complaint was dismissed and both cases were consolidated in the Nunez complaint.  

Thereafter, a mediation of the case was undertaken such that the cases were settled on behalf of all the current and former non-exempt employees of CompuCom who worked in California as Field Service Employees or had similar job titles or job duties, including Field Service Technician, Field Service Analyst or Field Service Specialist at any time from March 1, 2012 through April 7, 2017.

This past Friday, April 7, 2017, the court approved that settlement, as reflected in the attached Order.  

So people who were employed by CompuCom should be getting notices of this settlement sometime after the middle of next month (i.e., after May 15, 2017).  It should be coming from a company called CPT Group.  Look for a mailing from that company around then if you feel you qualify as a class member.

You may of course feel free to contact us if you want to discuss this matter further.  Likewise, if you have any questions about this case, or any other aspect of your employment, we’d be glad to speak with you. Please call us at 818-547-5200 or email us at tom@falveylaw.com.

 


UPDATE November 21, 2016 - GOING TO MEDIATION EARLY NEXT MONTH!

We are going to mediation in 10 days on a new class action in which you may be a member.

You might potentially be a member of this class action if you were working for them since February of 2012.  

This case is about not getting paid all wages and perhaps penalties for not doing so.  For example, we’re suing for possible short-changing on hours worked.  And for unpaid meal breaks (worth perhaps one hour’s pay per day),  

HERE’S SOMETHING UNIQUE TO EMPLOYERS.  We’re suing for wages not paid  work done because of Compucom’s practice of docking (i.e., a means of cutting off time from hours worked - EITHER BEFORE AND/OR AFTER THE WORKDAY), until, perhaps the past year or so.

HERE’S WHAT WE NEED:  WE NEED YOU TO CALL AND/OR EMAIL US - RIGHT AWAY.

If you have any emails, texts, voicemail, schedules, employee manuals or earnings statements which you believe might assist us in proving our case, we would be very eager to speak with you.

Likewise, if you incurred expenses for which you were not repaid, e.g., parking charges, mileage, etc., we’d like to hear from you about that as well.  

We'd be grateful to hear from you no matter what your job title was or is at Compucom since early 2012.

Please call our office at 818-547-5200.  You may also email us at tom@falveylaw.com or even drop by our office at 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500, Glendale, CA 91203.         

We go to mediation soon!  We need to hear from you now!


Update: Lawsuit filed against Compucom August 4, 2016

Our firm filed a Complaint for various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code against Compucom Systems, Inc.. (hereafter, “Compucom”).  A copy of the complaint is attached.

This case is filed on behalf of those individuals who worked for Compucom in California as Field Service Analysts, or doing the work of such employees, since August 4, 2012.
 
In her lawsuit, attached hereto, Plaintiff contends that Compucom did not comply with the requirements under California law for payment of wages.. If successful, this action allows former and current employees to receive payment in the form of penalties owed by Compcuom because of its alleged acts in the manner in which it paid these employees.  

The court has not yet ruled on any of Plaintiff's allegations or determined whether the case is appropriate for class action status.

If you are or were an employee of Compucom in California, we would like to speak with you. Please contact us by either calling our office at 818-547-5200,  You may also email us at tom@falveylaw.com or by mailing us at 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500, Glendale, CA 91203.

If you have any emails, texts, voicemail, schedules, employee manuals or earnings statements which you believe might assist us in proving our case, we would be very eager to speak with you.

Likewise, if you incurred expenses for which you were not repaid, e.g., parking charges, mileage, etc., we’d like to hear from you about that as well.  

We'd be grateful to hear from you no matter what your job title was or is at Compucom.

Thanks very much for whatever help you can provide.  We hope to hear from you soon.


Update

As you may be aware, back in 2010, we filed and resolved a class action lawsuit entitled Silva, et al, v Getronics for unpaid wages for class members.

We are now looking into filing a class action against Compucom.  We believe that CompuCom has implemented a policy where employees may have had 1 hour of their shifts remain unpaid for each day.  Thus far this concerns Compucom employees who work from their homes who may not typically go into a CompuCom office.

CompuCom may have reasoned that, as these employees work from their homes, they should not benefit from having no commute time.  If it automatically deducted 30 minutes of pay from the start and end of each shift, e.g. for an employee working an 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. shift with a one hour meal break, CompuCom may have only paid her for 8 hours of time. If so, the omitted one hour of time for each workday appears to amount to off-the-clock overtime.  

We are also looking into missed Meal Breaks.  With rare exception, California law requires that an employer provide an employee who works more than five hours a meal break for 30 minutes in duration.   Unless an employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal period, the meal period is considered an on-duty meal period and counted as time worked.  An on-duty meal period is permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and the parties agree in writing to an on-the-job paid meal period.  If an employer fails to provide an employee a lawful meal period, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay for each violation.  

We are also looking into missed Rest Breaks: California law requires that an employer must “authorize and permit” an employee to take a duty-free rest period not less than 10 minutes long for every four hours of work. A violation of this law requires the employer to pay the employee one hour of pay for each workday a rest period was not provided.  A break to use the bathroom (sometimes called a 'comfort' break) does not qualify as a rest break.

It appears that CompuCom’s requirement that employees immediately respond to calls placed by their supervisors or CompuCom clients may have made it impossible for them to always take full and complete meal and/or rest breaks.  Whenever a meal break or rest break was interrupted, CompuCom may have failed to pay such employees a premium penalty - one hour's pay - for the interruption.

Incomplete Retention of Records Showing All Hours Worked:   In California, the employer is required to keep records of all hours worked.  Any lack of such records might constitute a further violation of the law.

California law also requires that an employer “indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties”.  Such employees may have had to use their own cell phones to communicate with CompuCom management even though such employees were based out of their homes and such communication with management was integral to the job.  

The same might be true for if an employer failed to adequately reimburse employees for car expenses.  Some employees appear to have been required to go to various commercial locations in order to provide services to CompuCom’s clients.  It would seem to have been impossible for such individuals to complete their work solely, or even mainly, from their homes.  

CompuCom may also have failed to provide accurate wage statements in a violation of Labor Code Section 226.

Likewise, it may have failed to fully compensate former employees in a timely manner when their employment ended.


Case Documents

2017-4-7, Lewis -Nunez v. Compucom, ORDER Granting Preliminary Approval of settlement

DISCLAIMER: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners.

ADDRESS: 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500, Glendale, California 91203 | P: 818-547-5200 or 626-795-0205