Payroll software-maker ADP allegedly pressuring employees to not report overtime

The plaintiffs, Amir Kiani a/k/a Amir Monshizadeh and Chelsea Campbell, brought the suit on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, specifically district managers, senior district managers, and so-called “elite district managers,” alleging that ADP has willfully contravened their right to overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Sept. 22 suit was filed in Arizona Superior Court for Pima County by Lubin & Enoch and Awerkamp Bonilla & Giles on behalf of a class of district managers at the defendant’s office in Tucson.

Kiani also alleges that ADP retaliated against him in violation of the FLSA.

According to the complaint, Kiani was employed from approximately July 9. 2018 until March 14, 2023, working as a district manager, senior district manager and an elite district manager.

Kiani’s duties ranged from making and receiving phone calls, text messages, and emails from current and prospective clients to securing software sales contracts with clients and meeting the required sales quota, which increased with the change of title, according to the complaint.

Campbell was also employed by ADP, from January 2016 to July 2022 and, similar to Kiani, climbed the ranks from DM, to SDM, to EDM and shared the same responsibilities. Both Kiani and Campbell worked from ADP’s Tucson office, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges Kiani, Campbell, and all other similarly situated managers’ primary duty was securing software sales contracts with prospective clients and maintaining contracts with current clients, and were generally scheduled to work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days per week, Monday to Friday, with a one hour unpaid lunch break.

While being paid on an hourly basis, the complaint alleges, the employees consistently worked over 40 hours per week and were not paid for the overtime they usually worked.

The complaint further alleges that the plaintiffs and other employees were pressured to not clock in during the overtime hours they worked, including before their scheduled start time and after their scheduled end time, as well as over lunch and on the weekend.

According to the complaint, sales executives told DMs, SDMs and EDMs that they needed to be available at all times to communicate with clients, including regular business hours in other time zones and after or before regular business hours. The complaint further alleges that managers who didn’t make their sales quotas were often terminated.

Employees were allegedly placed on performance plans if they weren’t on track to fulfill yearly sales quotas for three months in a row, with the plans having the potential to lead to termination of employment, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Kiani and Campbell’s sales quotas have reached as much as $675,000 and $805,000, respectively.

“Due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ work, quick responses to business owners’ inquiries were necessary in order to secure sales and meet the sales quota. Sales leads could be manually reassigned to other managers if a manager did not immediately contact the lead. Thus, Plaintiffs frequently worked outside of scheduled hours, including while clocked out during lunch, and on weekends without compensation,” says the complaint. “Sales executives told Plaintiffs and other managers that they could take a lead at lunch time but to make sure they still clocked out for lunch because they need to stay under forty hours.”

The complaint also claims that ADP had a policy and practice of time-editing or removing overtime hours from employees’ timesheets and that its agents were “generally aware when their employees worked outside of their set schedules,” and that agents had admitted their practices were unlawful.

Campbell alleges she was instructed by her supervisor to stop recording her hours after she reached 45 hours each week because she was limited to 10 hours of overtime per pay period,

Campbell claims she was encouraged to keep working but to not record the time. According to the complaint, Campbell estimates that she is owed around 10 hours of overtime on average per week as she was told to clock out after 50 hours despite continuing to work, including evening and early morning hours, weekends, and during her lunch.

Kiani claims he learned his colleagues were told to clock out after 40 hours despite working more than that and weren’t paid overtime. The complaint also alleges Kiani learned that those colleagues’ supervisor was manually adjusting time cards to remove overtime.

According to the complaint, Kiani reported this information to ADP’s vice president of sales. The complaint alleges he was subsequently called into a meeting regarding his use of overtime, where supervisors told him that it appeared he was working on weekends without clocking in and that he wasn’t clocking out during lunch.

According to the complaint, Kiani admitted to working on weekends without clocking in, as he had been instructed. He also admitted to not clocking out during lunch on the occasions he worked through lunch.

The complaint alleges Kiani was then terminated for violating the company’s policy requiring employees to clock out for lunch. However, according to the complaint, he contends he was terminated because he truthfully reported his working hours on his time card and spoke out about ADP’s policy pressuring employees to not report overtime.

Related: Employer wins unpaid overtime lawsuit brought by administrative employees

The complaint alleges claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Overtime Compensation Provisions and Retaliation Provisions, and requests an award of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and costs.

Kiani also requests an order requiring ADP to reinstate him to his previous job, as well as ADP to pay him his lost wages and liquidated damages in an amount equal to the lost wages.

Kiani and Campbell’s attorney, Nicholas J. Enoch of Lubin & Enoch, in Phoenix, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant.