ADT Sales Rep sues ADT - survives summary judgment February 12, 2018

KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ
ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGE
You can read all of our articles on our website.  Having trouble getting our emails?   Change your spam controls and white list ken@kirschenbaumesq.com, secure.mybizmailer.com and mybizmailer.com 
************************************
ADT Sales Rep sues ADT - survives summary judgment
February 12, 2018
*********************
ADT Sales Rep sues ADT - survives summary judgment 
*********************
    The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in California.  The District Court decided a motion for summary judgment to dismiss 9 causes of action.  The judge layed out the preliminary facts and issues:  [citations omitted]
    "Defendant ADT is a corporation that provides residential and business electronic security systems, fire protection, and other related alarm monitoring services.   Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Residential High Volume Sales Representative from September 9, 2014 through October 2, 2015.  Plaintiff was based out of ADT’s San Diego Office, which had territorial responsibility for both San Diego and Imperial County. High Volume Sales Representatives at ADT are tasked with securing new sales of portfolio package sales and upgrades to new ADT residential customers.  High Volume Sales Representatives are further responsible for tracking the customer’s order to completion, ensuring that installation is in accordance with the customer’s order, and that the customer is 100% satisfied.   Thibodeau’s responsibilities included scheduled appointments with prospective customers, call nights, canvassing in the neighborhood, meetings with residential developers, community promotion events, and travel.   On at least some days, plaintiff spent 100 percent of his day doing sales and solicitation-related activities. 
    ADT had a written policy of issuing a sales quota to High Volume Sales Representatives.  Plaintiff was required to sell 192 units a year with the expectation of selling 4 units weekly or 16 units per month, and was expected to perform at 100% of the quota.  The quota of 192 units was contained within a written Sales Compensation Plan that Plaintiff was provided and signed upon his hiring on September 10, 2014.  Plaintiff received a written warning on July 1, 2015 for failing to meet sales goals for the month of June.  On September 29, 2015, Plaintiff was given a written warning for failure to meet sales goals in August and September of 2015.  Plaintiff resigned from employment with Defendant on October 2, 2016."
    Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges nine causes of action: 
(1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; 
(2) whistleblower retaliation; 
(3) violation of Defendant’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff through the unauthorized distribution of information related to Plaintiff’s customers; 
(4) failure to adequately reimburse Plaintiff for expenses he incurred while using his personal vehicle for work; 
(5) failure to pay overtime; 
(6) failure to provide rest days; 
(7) failure to provide wage statements; 
(8) denial of timely access to employee file; and 
(9) failure to display a list of employees’ rights and responsibilities. 
     ADT seeks partial summary judgment as to all causes of action, except for the Eighth Cause of Action for denial of timely access to employee file."
    I'll save you the suspense.  The court did not dismiss causes of action 1, 4, 7 and 8.  The other causes of action were dismissed.  It's a long decision, though probably quench your morbid sense of curiosity regarding some of the inner workings of ADT and it's relationship with at least this one "high volume sales representative".   
     If you use the Standard Form Employment Agreement we include an arbitration clause.  This case may have been resolved a lot faster.  Actually it's not resolved yet; maybe we will see a decision dealing with the remaining issues.  I know that some democratic senators are considering introducing legislation prohibiting compulsory arbitration in employment disputes, but at the moment - and I think for the foreseeable future, you can require arbitration.  If you don't have our Employment Agreement then I suggest you get it right now.  That offer is open to ADT too.  
    The case can be read on our website at Leading state cases, California. https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-law-issues   CLAYTON DEL THIBODEAU, Pro Se, Plaintiff, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a/k/a/ ADT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant.
*************************
THE ALARM EXCHANGE

Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301
ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
516 747 6700
www.KirschenbaumEsq.com