Case Summary
Stein v. Vanguard Utility Services, Inc.
A federal collective action lawsuit alleging systematic failure to pay overtime wages to utility workers across the United States in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Purpose of This Lawsuit
This lawsuit was filed to hold Vanguard Utility Services, Inc. accountable for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The FLSA establishes the federal right of non-exempt employees to receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per workweek.
The complaint alleges that Vanguard engaged in a pattern and practice of denying overtime pay to utility workers through a combination of misclassification, hour manipulation, and off-the-clock work requirements. These practices, if proven, represent a deliberate effort to reduce labor costs at the expense of workers who performed demanding, skilled work in the field.
The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages on behalf of Named Plaintiff James Stein and all similarly situated current and former Vanguard employees nationwide who were subjected to the same unlawful pay practices.
Summary of Allegations
The complaint sets forth three principal categories of alleged FLSA violations:
Failure to Pay Overtime (29 U.S.C. § 207)
Vanguard allegedly failed to compensate covered employees at the federally mandated overtime rate for hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. Workers regularly performed work before their scheduled shifts began, after their shifts ended, and during meal periods — none of which was captured in Vanguard's timekeeping records or reflected in their paychecks.
Misclassification and Hour Manipulation
The complaint alleges that Vanguard misclassified certain workers as exempt from overtime requirements despite their job duties qualifying them as non-exempt under the FLSA. Additionally, Vanguard is alleged to have manipulated time records — including rounding down hours, editing entries, or instructing workers not to record all time worked — to suppress the total compensable hours appearing on payroll.
Willful Violations
The complaint alleges that Vanguard's violations were willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). A finding of willfulness extends the applicable statute of limitations from two years to three years, potentially increasing the recoverable back wages for affected workers. Willfulness is established when an employer knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FLSA.
What the Lawsuit Seeks to Recover
On behalf of the proposed collective and class members, the lawsuit seeks the following categories of relief:
Unpaid Overtime Wages
All overtime compensation owed but not paid for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, calculated at one and one-half times each worker's regular rate of pay.
Liquidated Damages
An equal amount in liquidated (double) damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which are available as a matter of law unless the employer demonstrates good faith and reasonable grounds for its pay practices.
Up to Three Years of Back Pay
Given the allegation of willful violations, the complaint seeks recovery for a three-year lookback period rather than the standard two years.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs as provided by the FLSA, meaning workers who recover pay nothing out of pocket for legal representation.
Injunctive Relief
A court order requiring Vanguard to comply with the FLSA's overtime requirements going forward, protecting current employees from continued violations.
Proposed Collective and Classes
The lawsuit is brought as both an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and, where applicable, as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed collectives and classes are defined to include:
FLSA Collective (Nationwide)
All current and former non-exempt employees of Vanguard Utility Services, Inc. who worked more than forty hours in any workweek during the applicable limitations period and were not paid overtime at the required rate. Membership in the FLSA collective requires workers to affirmatively opt in by filing a written consent with the court.
Field Technicians and Utility Workers
Workers employed in field-based roles — including linemen, technicians, crew members, and other non-exempt utility personnel — who performed work before or after scheduled shifts, during meal breaks, or in other off-the-clock circumstances that were not compensated.
Misclassified Employees
Employees whom Vanguard designated as exempt from overtime requirements but whose actual job duties — as performed day-to-day — did not satisfy any recognized FLSA exemption, rendering them entitled to overtime pay they did not receive.
Why Worker Testimony Is Essential
Corroborating facts across the workforce strengthens the collective action.
FLSA collective actions are built on evidence that a common policy or practice affected similarly situated workers in the same way. The more workers who come forward to describe their experiences — the hours they worked, the pay they received, and the instructions they were given — the stronger the evidentiary record becomes for the entire collective.
Vanguard operates across multiple states, and its alleged pay practices may have been implemented differently by different supervisors, crews, or regional offices. Gathering testimony from workers in varied locations and roles allows counsel to document the full scope of the violations, identify patterns, and demonstrate that the conduct was company-wide rather than isolated.
Your account of what happened on the job — the hours you worked, whether you were told not to record certain time, how your pay was calculated, and whether you raised concerns — is factual evidence that cannot be replicated from payroll records alone. Payroll data shows what Vanguard paid; worker testimony shows what Vanguard owed.
Your experience matters to this case.
Contact counsel confidentially or check whether you qualify to join the collective.
Note: The allegations summarized on this page are drawn from the complaint filed in this matter. They represent the plaintiff's claims and have not been adjudicated. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or establishes an attorney-client relationship.