ZEP Inc named in employment class action for failure to pay proper wages and commissions to outside sales representatives

 

This is a class, collective, and representative action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are or were employed by Defendants as Employees and Outside Salespersons and were denied proper compensation as required by state and federal law.

The Class consists of every person who has worked for Defendants in California and the United States as an Outside Sales Representative within four years of the filing of this action (the “Class Period”).

During the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay wages/commissions to Plaintiffs and each member of the putative classes as required by federal and state law. Further, the Defendants have engaged in an unlawful policy and practice of taking accounts and commissions obtained by salespersons in violation of both the written contract that all salespersons signed and applicable law.

As alleged, ZEP has a history of engaging in unlawful conduct with regard to its outside salespersons. At the time these accounts were obtained, each representative was never informed that the accounts or the commissions generated from these accounts could be taken from them unilaterally by Defendants. In fact, Plaintiffs and the current and former employees they seek to represent were informed in writing that such commissions would be earned when payment was made by the customer.

The representatives were also promised in writing that any changes to any commission program could only be applied “prospectively”. In other words, any new accounts obtained after a modification to the agreement could be made, but any new commission plan would not be effective retroactively, i.e., to accounts that had been obtained prior to any modification of the plan.

According to the complaint, in direct contradiction with those written promises, beginning in approximately 2017, ZEP began unilaterally and surreptitiously taking accounts/commissions obtained by their outside salespersons. Effective April 1, 2018, ZEP placed a policy in writing in which it acknowledged that it would began taking accounts/commissions from these sales persons.

COMPLAINT

Eli Lilly named by an employee in a class action lawsuit over wage violations

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC for its failure to pay salary incentives contracted for and earned by Plaintiff and other members of the Class.

The class consists of : All LILLY Fixed Duration Employees (“FOE’.’) who, during the class period, did not receive (1) a sales incentive (“VOB”), and/or (2) a Customer Value Metric (“CVM”), and/or (3) a Service Value Chain (“SVC”), and/or (4) the value of a Reward Recognition Trip (“RRT”), payments as a result of their scheduled termination date occurring before the completion of the time period used for calculating said amounts.

Lilly is a pharmaceutical company which is principally engaged in the design, development, manufacture, and selling of pharmaceutical products in the United States and throughout the world. LILLY is the tenth (10th) largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Plaintiff was employed by LILLY as a Senior Sales Representative and was hired as a “Fixed Duration Employee” whose employment would end on a specified future date. Throughout Plaintiffs employment with LILLY. Plaintiff contracted for and received regular salary incentives for meeting certain individual and team goals. In fact, as part of its offer of employment to all Fixed Duration Employees, LILLY promised specific incentives to Plaintiff as additional components of her total salary package. Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees received these incentives on a quarterly, bi-annual, or annual basis, depending on the type of salary incentive.

4LILLY also promised that Plaintiff would receive the incentives she earned through the end of her contractual term. However, when Plaintiffs employment term came to an end, LILLY failed to pay Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees the incentives they had earned prior to their scheduled termination date.

Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to recover all damages resulting from LILLY’s failure to pay the incentives contracted for by LILLY and its Fixed Duration Employees.