Motivational Coaches of America, Management Paid No Wages, Lawsuit Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Three plaintiffs have filed a proposed class action lawsuit in which they claim Motivational Coaches of America, Inc. (MCA) and seven individuals with control over the company willfully failed to pay proper wages.

According to the complaint, MCA offers programs for students “struggling with anger management, substance abuse, self-esteem and behavioral challenges.” Through these programs, the defendant provides “motivational coaches” that deliver mental health services on campuses, with funding coming not from school districts, but from private sponsors, insurers and government initiatives. Employment with MCA is pursuant to a “service member agreement,” the lawsuit continues, which can be terminated at-will by the company, but only for-cause by motivational coaches themselves.

The lawsuit explains the defendants pay motivational coaches on a supposed fee-for-service basis, whereby coaches are required to earn “engagement points” by interacting with students. Per the complaint, coaches are expected to earn 69 engagement points per day, with the first 69 points earned in a day entitling an individual to a payment of $3.12 per point, or up to $215.58 per day.  Each additional engagement point earned in a day would garner a coach an additional $2, the suit continues. Moreover, coaches were allegedly expected to provide counseling services to students who were not “sponsored,” i.e., those without insurance to cover MCA’s costs, for which coaches would receive no engagement points or payment.

The plaintiffs allege they worked 50 to 60 hours per week—often spending “many additional hours per week” outside of school hours counseling students—without receiving proper wages or, the case alleges, any pay at all. One plaintiff claims that although she was never paid any wages for her work as a motivational coach, she received a letter from Motivational Coaches of America accusing her of failing to comply with “certain compliance standards,” and claiming she owed the defendant nearly $5,000 in purportedly overpaid wages. A second plaintiff claims she worked for the defendants from December 2017 through March 2018 and received only $1,018 in wages.