Employees File Collective Action Against PR Software Company for Labor Violations

Yesterday, several plaintiffs sued Cision US Inc. and Cision Ltd. (together, Cision) in a putative class action filed on behalf of current and former sales representatives. The complaint brings claims for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the labor laws of New York, Illinois, and Maryland.

The filing explains that Cision is a public relations software and services provider with more than a dozen offices nationwide, including in New York. Specifically, the company “sells software products that identify influencers, create and distribute content, and measure the impact of communications,” the plaintiffs purported.

Allegedly, sales representatives sell its products and services either from Cision offices or from other fixed locations, like their homes. The complaint explains that these employees perform FLSA non-exempt sales-related tasks, including “communicating with clients and potential clients via phone and email, researching sales leads, booking sales meetings with prospective clients, and/or making[] sales of Cision’s products to current and/or prospective clients.” The filing states that during the relevant periods, sales representatives often worked more than 40 hours per week while carrying out these duties.

The complaint alleges that though sales representatives were FLSA-eligible for overtime pay, Cision neither recorded their overtime hours nor paid them for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The defendants’ unlawful conduct, the plaintiffs claim, is part of a “corporate policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by violating the FLSA and state wage and hour laws.”

The filing seeks reparations on behalf of both an “FLSA collective,” comprised of Cision sales representatives who opt-in to the action, and New York, Maryland, and Illinois classes. The complaint requests certification of the state classes, various damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other things.

The plaintiffs are represented by Outten & Golden LLP.