Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morgan v. Crush City Construction, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

January 3, 2020

ZACHARY MORGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
CRUSH CITY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this putative class and collective action, plaintiff Zachary Morgan brings suit against defendant Crush City Construction, LLC (“Crush City”), alleging violations of state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Before the court is plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action and authorization of notice to similarly situated persons. (Dkt. #19.) Subject to one modification to plaintiff's proposed notice, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for the reasons discussed below.

         ALLEGATIONS OF FACT[1]

         Defendant Crush City is a privately-owned construction company. Crush City employs approximately one-hundred “technician employees” performing the same basic duties -- a group that includes both “technicians” (also known informally as “laborers”) and “foremen” (also known as “crew leaders”). While foremen are more senior than technicians, both positions are hourly and non-exempt. Technician employees are assigned to one of six departments -- leafguard gutters, roofing, decking, addition and remodel, siding, windows and doors -- with each department consisting of different “crews.”

         Named plaintiff Zachary Morgan worked at Crush City as a technician employee from May 2017 until September 2018. The Crush City headquarters -- known as the “shop” -- is located in Baldwin, Wisconsin. Technician employees are also assigned to work at various jobsites across Wisconsin and Minnesota. These jobsites are typically forty-five minutes to two hours away from the shop.

         All technician employees are subject to various written policies established by Crush City, including a “Company Manual, ” which provides in relevant part that “vehicles other than Company-owned vehicles . . . used to travel to and from job sites . . . do not qualify” for mileage reimbursement and that employees “are encouraged to use [Crush City's] designated parking lot .... Please lock your car each day ....” (Walcheski Decl., Ex. 6 (dkt. #23-6) 11, 28.)

         Crush City also has a written “Drive Time Policy, ” which provides in relevant part that:

[Crush City] . . . has GPS units in all vehicles to review your recorded times for verification and timekeeping procedures . .
Drive Time is Allowable:
1. Pulling a trailer to a jobsite -- Driver Only
2. Attending a scheduled meeting at the shop then traveling to the jobsite -- Driver & Rider
3. Driving from the shop to jobsite after receiving instructions or picking up material -- Driver Only
4. Driving from the shop to jobsite after loading company vehicle -- Driver Only
5. Driving from jobsite back to the shop to unload material -- this should be performed the following day if possible
6. Driving from supplier (store) on way to the jobsite after leaving the shop
7. Driving from home to shop with material that needs to be disposed of in a dumpster

         Drive Time Not Allowable:

1. Driving from home to the shop and/or driving from shop to home (unless as stated above)
2. Riders in vehicles, if they did not assist with loading vehicle or attend a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.