Group of Legal Intake Specialists Sues Over Pay Violations

A group of current and former intake specialists for a legal services company say they were misclassified as independent contractors and didn’t receive payment for required overtime premiums.

The workers—who were allegedly scheduled and required to work more than 40 hours per week—are suing Bridge Legal Support Services LLC, Bridge Legal Holdings LLC and Bridge Legal Technology LLC in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The defendants meet the Fair Labor Standards Act’s joint employer requirement because they controlled the rate and method of payment, dictated schedules, and implemented and enforced policies, the complaint said June 2.

The key issues are the misclassification of intake specialists and the amount of off-the-clock work that occurred each day, the complaint said. Intake Specialists were put “through a comprehensive training process that includes: call recording and feedback, scripted intake questions, testing, role playing, shadowing other intake reps, logging into their computer systems and using the same,and training on disposition protocols and best practices,among other things,” it said.

The specialists were also “required to sign a ‘contractor agreement,’” were paid on “an hourly basis” and were allowed to “take a 15-minute paid break for each four hours worked,” according to the complaint.

The defendants didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The putative collective members are remote intake specialists from their home offices around the country who assert a violation of FLSA for failure to pay overtime wages.

The proposed collective will include former and current intake specialists who worked for the defendants during the three preceding years of the complaint and up through the judgment who were misclassified as independent contractors and didn’t receive proper premium overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one week.

They’re asking the court to order the defendants to disclose in the names and addresses of all collective action collective members, and permit the collective representatives to send notice of this action to all similarly situated individuals, including the publishing of notice in a manner that is reasonably calculated to notify the collective members of their rights by law to join and participate in this lawsuit.

The case is before Judge Edmond E. Chang.

Ash Law PLLC and Morgan & Morgan PA represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Blue v. Bridge Legal Support Servs. LLC, N.D. Ill., No. 23-cv-03487, complaint 6/2/23.