W.W. Grainger Facing Class Action Over Alleged California Labor Law Violations

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges W.W. Grainger, Inc. failed to pay proper wages and provide uninterrupted, duty-free meal and rest breaks to hourly paid distribution center employees in California. The suit, which was recently removed from superior to district court, alleges W.W. Grainger, a distributor of maintenance and repair supplies, required proposed class members to work off the clock while rounding work hours to the nearest quarter- or half-hour to the workers’ detriment.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant’s distribution center workers were required to work off the clock without overtime wages due in part to W.W. Grainger’s “difficult to attain” production demands placed upon them by management. The case adds the workers were also required to undergo pre- and post-shift security screenings for which they were not compensated.

With regard to meal and rest breaks, the complaint claims W.W. Grainger automatically deducted 30 minutes from workers’ pay regardless of whether an uninterrupted meal break was ever taken. To this point, the case adds that the defendant enforced a policy that disallowed workers from leaving the distribution center during their rest breaks. While leaving the premises was allowed for meal periods, the lawsuit claims employees were required to undergo security checks and walk long distances to reach the break room, which impermissibly shortened their break time.

The case goes on to claim the defendant had no real electronic timekeeping system in place to record when proposed class members began or ended work shifts and meal breaks. While several company computers were placed in or near the breakroom for timekeeping purposes, according to the suit, distribution center workers “were not permitted to input their actual and real times worked.”

“Instead, they were instructed by [the defendant] and their managers to input times which were rounded down to their substantial detriment to the nearest 30 minute or 15-minute increments and to input shift start and end times and meal start and end times based on their work schedules, and not based on the hours they actually worked in reality,” the suit reads. “If times other than the scheduled work hours were inputted, Employees would be counseled by managers."