Program Manager Sues TEKsystems and Ford Over Alleged Overtime Violations

A new collective action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, by a Program Manager employed by TEKsystems and assigned to work at Ford Motor Company. ​ The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) related to unpaid overtime wages. ​

The worker claims that TEKsystems and Ford failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees the legally required overtime rate of time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 per week. ​ Instead, employees were allegedly granted one hour of paid time off (PTO) for each overtime hour worked, what is sometimes known as “comp time.” Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, comp time is generally not considered a proper substitute for overtime pay.​ In addition, the lawsuit asserts that employees were later denied the ability to use or cash out the accrued PTO, effectively depriving them of any compensation for their overtime work. ​

The complaint, attached below, alleges the usual "common scheme" by TEKsystems and Ford as co-employers, highlighting Ford's control over TEKsystems employees' day-to-day activities. Lindow, who began his employment on February 6, 2023, was paid $54 per hour and allegedly promised $81 per hour for overtime in his employment agreement.

Analysis

This case reflects the seemingly never-ending issues with wage and hour laws in the staffing context. ​Clients tend to resist approving overtime while often assigning job duties that require it. To add insult to injury, client-prepared contract documents often seek to place the full burden of wage-hour claims upon the staffing firm. Staffing firms that accept client terms without scrutiny risk absorbing losses not of their own making, although it is unclear if that is the case here. Pro tip: At least try to make the duty to "comply with law" a mutual obligation in the client agreement. The client can hardly refuse such a reasonable request, and it creates an opportunity to neutralize one-sided and unfair legal risk-shifting found in so many client contract forms.