Cable Layer Sues Optimum, Altice for Labor Law Violations

Optimum and Altice failed to compensate cable layer employees completely for their labor and calculated earned wages based on feet of cable installed instead of the number of hours worked in a work week, in violation of labor laws, alleged Luka Kvinikadze of Vermont in a Wednesday class action (docket 1:23-cv-02922) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn.

Kvinikadze was employed to install fiber optic cable for Optimum in New York May 1- June 10 via subcontractor agreements through ASI Fiber and Gureev, said the complaint. Kvinikadze responded to an ad for cable layers on RussRek.com and was hired by Gureev, his point of contact, to install cables for Optimum, the complaint said. Gureev instructed Kvinikadze to create his own limited liability corporation, to which Gureev promised to wire payments for Kvinikadze’s work, it said.

Defendants committed to paying cable layers 20 cents per foot of cable installed, based on measurements on Optimum installation maps vs. on-the-ground measurements, said the complaint. They told Kvinikadze the rate would “typically amount to around $2,000 of gross income per week,” the complaint said.

The defendants “never paid” Kvinikadze any of the earned wages from the six-week period he was employed, said the complaint. Defendants “refused to pay” the cable layers for the lengths of cable they were required to coil along an installation, it alleged. Upon information and belief, defendants had a “uniform practice” of promising to pay the manual laborers per cable laid, “regardless of total hours worked,” said the complaint.

Kvinikadze’s typical workday began at 5 a.m. when he and other cable layers were picked up at a location in Brooklyn and transported to work sites within Optimum service areas on Long Island, the complaint said. The laborers worked until it was too dark to continue and would be dropped off back at the Brooklyn location “as late as 9 p.m.,” it said. On average, Kvinikadze worked 16-hour days, six or seven days a week, for 96-112 hours per week, he said. He was not given time to take a lunch break, he said.

The plaintiff regularly paid for gas to fill the defendants’ van driven throughout the workday, but he was never reimbursed, he said. Workers were required to buy their own vests but were not reimbursed for the expense, he said.

Defendants violated the Wage Theft Prevention Act for unpaid overtime wages and failure to pay minimum wage, the complaint said. They violated the New York Labor Law for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to pay spread of hours; unlawful wage deduction; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; failure to furnish wage notices; and failure to pay timely wages.

Plaintiff seeks for himself and the class an award of unpaid wages owed, including interest, penalties and liquidated damages; an award of attorneys’ fees and legal costs; and an injunction against defendants requiring them to cease and desist from unlawful labor violations, said the complaint.