First look: For years, hundreds of remote hourly workers at Bank of America may have spent up to 30 minutes each day booting up and logging into the bank's complex computer systems before their paid shifts officially began. Now, a class action lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that the bank systematically failed to compensate these employees for that time, despite federal labor guidance that clearly states such activities should be paid.
The lawsuit centers on the experiences of Tava Martin, a former business analyst who worked both remotely and at the bank's Jacksonville facility. According to court documents, Martin and her colleagues were required to perform a series of technical steps before they could begin their workday.
These included turning on their computers, waiting for Windows to load, requesting a security token for the company's VPN, logging into the network, opening multiple web applications with separate passwords, and downloading the necessary Excel files for the day's tasks. Only after all these steps were completed could employees start taking calls from business customers about regulatory reporting requirements.
The process was not quick. Employees routinely spent 15 to 30 minutes each morning just getting their systems running. When technical problems arose, the time could stretch even longer. The bank enforced a strict "phone ready" policy, requiring employees to be prepared to handle calls the moment their scheduled shifts began. Anyone who clocked in but wasn't immediately available to take or make calls risked poor performance scores and possible disciplinary action, including termination.
Despite the time spent on these pre-shift activities, the lawsuit claims that Bank of America discouraged workers from reporting any time outside their scheduled hours. Martin's paystubs consistently showed exactly 40 hours per week, or exactly 32 hours when she missed a day, suggesting the bank paid for scheduled time rather than actual work performed.
The unpaid work didn't end with the morning setup. During unpaid lunch breaks, many systems would automatically disconnect, forcing employees to repeat portions of the login process – adding another three to five minutes of uncompensated time on most days, sometimes longer if a complete reboot was required. After shifts ended, workers had to log out of all programs and shut down their computers securely, adding an extra 2 to 3 minutes.
Martin, who earned $46.17 per hour through a third-party staffing agency, regularly worked full-time hours. The lawsuit argues that the uncompensated startup and shutdown time should have been paid at the overtime rate of 1.5 times her regular wage.
For the week of March 11 through March 17, 2024, Martin was paid for 40 regular hours but no overtime. With unpaid pre-shift, meal-period, and post-shift time of at least 20 minutes per shift over five shifts, she should have received an additional 100 minutes at her overtime rate of $69.25 per hour. Similar calculations apply to other pay periods cited in the complaint.
The lawsuit points to 2008 guidance from the Department of Labor that specifically addresses call centers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. That guidance explicitly states that an example of the first principal activity of the day for call center workers includes starting computers to download work instructions and applications. It also requires employers to keep daily or weekly records of all hours worked, including time spent in pre-shift and post-shift activities.
The filing suggests Bank of America either didn't bother to determine whether the computer time was compensable or knew it was but failed to pay for it anyway. The lawsuit notes the company has faced factually similar cases from other employees about time spent loading and logging into computer systems.
Martin seeks to represent all current and former remote hourly business analysts who worked for the bank during the three years before conditional certification through judgment. She estimates the group includes hundreds, if not thousands, of workers who performed essentially the same tasks using the same or similar computer programs under the same timekeeping policies.
The case remains in early stages, with no court ruling yet on whether it will proceed as a class action or on the merits of the allegations.