Cogent Communications

Did you work for Cogent Communications Holdings, Cogent Communications of South East, or Cogent Communications at some point during the past few years? Those who held inside sales representative positions, including any of several account manager positions and similarly titled positions, may be eligible to join a collective action case seeking to help these employees recover overtime wages Cogent Communications failed to pay to them.

The plaintiffs are using this class-action lawsuit to seek compensation the company owes them for unpaid overtime, underpaid overtime, unpaid commissions, and underpaid commissions. Through Cogent Communications’ wage practices for its inside sales reps, we believe the company is violating the Federal Overtime wage law in the FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act.

Through our lawsuit, we are alleging that Cogent Communications companies failed to pay overtime wages to employees who were working in inside sales jobs and similar jobs. Our representative plaintiff started working for Cogent in January 2019. Others who were working in similar jobs for this company since January 2019 or, in some cases, even earlier than 2019 may be eligible to become part of the lawsuit.

Through our position, we believe that all affected employees have an eligibility to recover damages. We believe these damages would include wages unpaid or underpaid for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week, as well as an equal sum of liquidated damages and any attorney’s fees and costs.

CASE: Nasser Zaki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Cogent Communications Holding Inc., Cogent Communications of South East Inc., and Cogent Communications Inc., violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime wage laws.

Through this lawsuit, we are alleging that Cogent Communications failed to follow the FLSA law by not paying overtime wages to affected employees working as inside sales representatives since at least January 2019.

To avoid paying overtime wages, we believe Cogent Communications used various job titles that would indicate certain employees were not eligible for overtime pay, even though they were working in jobs that would make them eligible for overtime pay. We are alleging that these positions, regardless of what Cogent called them, consist of non-exempt employees under the FLSA definition, meaning they deserve an hourly wage and overtime pay.

Some of the job titles Cogent Communications used to try to classify certain employees as being part of management and exempt from receiving overtime pay included:

Regional Account Manager (RAM)
National Account Manager (NAM)
Global Account Manager (GAM)
The defendant potentially used other job titles. Employees often used these job titles to describe their own jobs as well.

To learn more about this case, click here.

Common Unfair Practices

At Feldman Legal Group, we frequently represent employees as plaintiffs in cases involving FLSA collective actions regarding non-payment of overtime. Some of the employees we represented in past cases, as well as in currently pending cases, worked at companies including NinjaOne and NinjaRMM, Fleetcor Technologies, Select Rehabilitation, Strada Services, Verizon Connect, Verizon Connect Fleet, Total Insurance Brokers, Accenture, Managed Labor Solutions, and others in similar FLSA collective actions.

Because of the practices of these companies, we believe that employees did not receive the overtime wages they earned. According to the federal FLSA and state wage laws, any non-exempt employees should receive a premium in wages for hours they work beyond the standard 40-hour work week.

Companies try to work around these requirements to pay overtime by misrepresenting the responsibilities or titles of the employees, making it appear as though these employees are exempt from having the opportunity to earn overtime pay. Through our work on this case, we believe Cogent Communications is performing this type of misrepresentation.

Cogent Communications’ Violations of the FLSA

At Feldman Legal Group, we would like to discuss with past employees of Cogent the company’s unfair overtime payment practices. Please contact us to discuss your situation.

Through our investigation, we believe that Cogent Communications did not give credit for overtime to its employees who:

Worked through all or part of the one-hour lunch break time
Worked hours before the official start of the workday
Worked hours after the official end of the workday
Worked weekend hours.
We are alleging that Cogent Communications frequently expected and encouraged the employees to work hours outside of the normal workday without recording these hours as overtime.

Our Investigation

While investigating the case involving our representative plaintiff, we learned that he and other account managers worked through the entire lunch hour break for one or multiple days a week.

Additionally, he and other account managers often took less than the one-hour lunch break and ate lunch at their desks while working. This occurred anywhere from one to five days in many work weeks. People in these inside sales positions who were working through these breaks deserved overtime pay.

We also discovered that Cogent Communications did not make use of a timesheet that allowed inside sales reps to record the start or stop time of any lunch breaks. Therefore, the timesheet always assumed that employees took the entire one-hour break, rather than allowing the employees to accurately record their work hours.

Finally, we learned that Mr. Zaki is alleging he and other account managers often felt pressure to work hours before the workday, after the workday, and on the weekends. They also felt pressure to work these hours without receiving overtime, because the company’s policy on overtime was that any employee who planned to work overtime had to have management pre-approve any extra work hours. However, management had a standing policy of refusing to approve overtime hours, so employees felt they had no opportunity to receive approval for overtime.

Because of this failure to pay for overtime hours worked, our representative plaintiff believes the company also underpaid commissions he earned, as commission payments tied into weekly salary amounts. Had he received his proper overtime pay, an increase in his commission pay also should have occurred.

Get Help from Our Attorneys If You Believe You Weren’t Paid for Overtime

If you also worked under these conditions, our team would like to speak with you. We would like to gather more information on Cogent Communications’ practices regarding overtime pay for inside sales reps.

Please contact us for a 10- or 15-minute phone call about your experiences with Cogent and about your beliefs regarding any FLSA violations the company performed. You are under no obligation to join the lawsuit or to work with us after this telephone call.

Feldman Legal Group would like to speak to anyone with information regarding the scheme at Cogent Communications to deny inside sales representatives the ability to earn overtime pay, even though the FLSA shows that they deserve overtime pay. This scheme dates to January 2019 and perhaps earlier. Our employment attorneys want to interview you about your experiences with the company.

If you believe you deserved overtime wages that you did not receive while working as a RAM, NAM, GAM, or any other similar position at Cogent Communications, please contact us. We would like to set up a time that is convenient for you to discuss your situation and experiences in any of these types of job positions.