Skip to content Skip to navigation

Good Look, Ink “Image Consultants” Labor Violations Class Action

Share
Before and After Photos of Balding Scalp and Hair Micro Tattoo

What are the criteria companies use for determining whether employees are exempt from overtime pay requirements or non-exempt? The complaint for this class action claims that Good Look, Ink and GLI LAX Holdings, LLC misclassified employees in an attempt to save money on overtime pay and in other areas. It alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as California labor laws.

The class for this action is all persons in the US who have worked for Good Look, Ink and GLI LAX Holdings, LLC as an “image consultant” on in a similar inside sales position between January 3, 2015 and the present.

Oshone Khan worked for Good Look, Ink or GLI LAX Holdings in California as an image consultant who provided inside sales assistance between November 2017 and May 2018. The companies provide scalp micro-pigmentation (tattoo) services in the US, although their principle place of business is in Minnesota. Khan’s job was to sell these hair replacement services.

Khan claims she was misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. However, she claims that her position did not qualify for an executive, administrative, or professional exemption or any other managerial exemption allowed by California law. 

The complaint alleges that she and others workers in the same position should have been paid for all hours they worked, including overtime pay for hours worked over forty each week.

Under the applicable laws and wage orders, the complaint says, Khan should also have been given regular rest periods and meal breaks, and if they were not, they should have been given additional financial compensation instead.

In addition, the complaint says that the companies did not keep the records required by state wage orders and did not provide itemizes wage statements. Khan should also have been reimbursed for business expenses, the complaint says, including for sales events with potential clients, such as gas and mileage.

According to the complaint, Khan and her co-workers were intentionally misclassified to save the company money, which is a violation of California’s Labor Code. It brings its other claims under the same Labor Code, as well as under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the FLSA. Finally, it claims that the companies have violated the state’s Unfair Competition Law and asks for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as penalties, back pay, and interest. 

Article Type: 
Topic: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook