A new lawsuit alleges that a major broadband provider systematically failed to pay its hourly customer service employees for all hours worked, including required tasks performed before and after scheduled shifts. The complaint was filed by Jerry Ray on April 3, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Cox Communications, Inc. and Cox Communications Arizona, LLC.
According to the filing, Jerry Ray brings this case as both a collective and class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers who were employed by Cox in various customer service roles across the United States. The central claim is that these employees were not compensated for significant amounts of time spent performing essential work activities outside their recorded shift times—a practice Ray alleges violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), the Arizona Wage Payment Act (AWPA), as well as common law contract principles.
The complaint outlines that Cox employs hundreds of non-exempt hourly workers with job titles such as Customer Care Specialist, Customer Service Representative, Technical Customer Care Specialist, Senior Logistics Concierge, and Inbound Sales Representative. These employees work in both physical call centers and remote settings nationwide. Ray reports that all representatives are paid hourly wages but were required to perform tasks like starting up computers, logging into multiple software programs, preparing systems for calls before clocking in at the start of their shifts, and closing down applications after clocking out at shift end.
Ray alleges that these pre- and post-shift activities typically took between 18 to 35 minutes per shift but went uncompensated due to company policies restricting when employees could clock in or out. For example, he states that representatives had to be ‘call ready’ exactly at their scheduled start time but could only clock in a few minutes beforehand—insufficient time to complete necessary preparations. Similarly, after ending their last call and clocking out at shift end as instructed by management policy, representatives would still need several more minutes to finish documentation or close programs.
The suit cites guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor which warns employers about such practices in call centers: “An example of the first principal activity of the day for agents/specialists/representatives working in call centers includes starting the computer to download work instructions…” Ray argues that failing to compensate workers for these activities violates FLSA requirements that all hours worked—including preparatory or concluding tasks—must be paid.
The plaintiff further claims that Cox’s centralized payroll system did not accurately reflect actual hours worked because it excluded off-the-clock time mandated by company policies. As a result, affected employees allegedly missed out on both regular pay (for so-called ‘gap time’) and overtime compensation when total weekly hours exceeded forty due to uncompensated pre- or post-shift work.
Ray also asserts state law claims under Arizona statutes for himself and other employees who worked within Arizona during the relevant period. He alleges violations related to minimum wage payments, recordkeeping failures, late payment of wages owed under contract terms, and breach of contract where agreed-upon hourly rates were not honored for all hours worked.
In addition to monetary relief—including back pay for unpaid wages at regular or overtime rates—the lawsuit seeks liquidated damages (double damages), attorneys’ fees and costs as provided under federal law. The plaintiff asks the court to certify collective action status under FLSA Section 216(b) so other affected workers can join; class certification is also sought under Federal Rule 23 for state law claims covering current or former representatives nationwide as well as those specifically employed in Arizona.
Ray requests court orders requiring Cox Communications to disclose contact information for potential class members so they can be notified about joining the suit; declaratory judgments finding Cox violated federal wage laws; injunctive relief prohibiting future similar conduct; treble damages under Arizona statutes; compensatory damages; interest; penalties; attorney fees; costs; and any other appropriate remedies.
According to court documents, Jerry Ray is represented by counsel experienced in wage-and-hour litigation. The case is identified as Case No: 1:26-cv-01787-SCJ.
Source: 126cv1787_Jerry_Ray_v_Cox_Communications_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
