Class Action Claims Fastaff and U.S. Nursing Unlawfully Cut Travel Nurses’ Pay Mid-Contract

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Fastaff, LLC and U.S. Nursing Corporation face a proposed class action that claims the staffing agencies offered attractive contracts to travel nurses only to cut their pay after the employees began the assignments.

According to the 50-page lawsuit, Fastaff and U.S. Nursing, who offer nurses fixed-term assignments at healthcare facilities with open positions, unlawfully used “bait-and-switch” tactics in an effort to reduce labor costs and “maintain the significant profit margins [they] had become accustomed to during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Despite purporting to be among the best travel nurse staffing solutions companies in the U.S., Fastaff and U.S. Nursing are “predatory” agencies with “company-wide [policies] and practice[s] of failing and refusing to pay wages” owed to employees, the case charges.

Per the suit, after a travel nurse has accepted a contract at a promised pay rate, the defendants make a “‘take-it-or-leave-it’ demand to accept less pay or be terminated,” leaving nurses with little option but to accept the unilateral change.

“Of course, most nurses have no choice but to continue working the assignment at the lower rate because they have no reasonable alternatives for comparable employment: they have already incurred travel expenses, secured short-term housing, and uprooted their lives to accept the assignment,” the case reads.

Per the complaint, when a travel nurse employed by the defendants is notified of a pay decrease and asked to sign a “revised” contract, the staffing companies “[t]ime and time again” blame the facilities at which the employee works for the change.

“It is likely that hundreds or thousands of Fastaff employees have received this type of notification or ones like it,” the suit reads. “In every instance, Fastaff blames the rate decrease on the facility supposedly changing its bill rate (i.e., the amount Fastaff is being paid hourly for the employee’s work) in response to a lower census or staffing needs.”

The case alleges that the defendants’ actions and policies are designed to “defraud” their employees and that the companies knowingly make “false promises,” while never intending to pay nurses the agreed-upon rates.

“Fastaff bets on the fact that after a nurse has spent weeks or months procuring an assignment—and taking all the steps necessary to accept that assignment, such as procuring housing, moving, and leaving a current employment—it will not be economically feasible for them to walk away from the assignment after Fastaff unilaterally cuts their pay,” the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, Fastaff and U.S. Nursing employees feel “demoralized and taken advantage of” but maintain their contracts out of fear of “blacklisting” and “potential retaliation.”

The case alleges that nothing in the original agreements signed by the nurses authorizes the defendants to alter employees’ pay, and the “revised” contracts received later are therefore invalid.

In addition, the complaint accuses the two Colorado staffing agencies of failing to pay correct overtime wages (i.e., one-and-a-half times an employee’s regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 a week). According to the filing, the defendants have unlawfully omitted allowances like “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay and a housing stipend when calculating travel nurses’ overtime rates, resulting in employee underpayment. Per the case, these payments are part of the workers’ overall pay package and should therefore be included in their regular pay rate for the purpose of calculating overtime wages.

One of the plaintiffs, a San Diego resident, accepted an offer from the defendants in December 2020 for a fixed-term assignment in Daly City, California, the case explains. In March 2021, three days before an extension of the plaintiff’s contract was to go into effect, her employers notified her of an 18% reduction of her hourly pay rate—shrinking from $85 to $70 per hour—and similar cuts to her overtime and call-back rates, the complaint relays.

Per the suit, the plaintiff had “very little choice” but to accept the new rates, and, as the filing claims, “[a]t a minimum, the difference between the value of the original agreement and the unilateral pay reduction was more than $10,000.”

The other plaintiff in the case claims to have had a similar experience, with the defendants’ unilateral changes allegedly reducing the value of his agreement by at least $7,000.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone fitting the following descriptions:

“All persons who entered into an agreement with Fastaff and whose total compensation was reduced before the end of the agreed upon term.”

“All persons who entered into an agreement with Fastaff to work at a facility or location in California who (1) had their total compensation reduced before the end of the agreed upon term; and/or (2) who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or 8 hours in a single workday and whose regular rate of pay for overtime purposes … did not include the ‘On Call’ pay, ‘Call Back’ pay, or ‘Housing Stipend’ (or their equivalents by any other name).”

“All persons who entered into an agreement with Fastaff to work at a facility or location in Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and whose regular rate of pay did not include the ‘On Call’ pay, ‘Call Back’ pay, or ‘Housing Stipend’ (or their equivalents by any other name).”

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.