Several other defendants, including Elon Musk’s America PAC and California Republican Rep. Michelle Steele’s re-election campaign, are accused of violating California labor law. class action lawsuit The lawsuit was filed in Orange County on October 30, according to court documents obtained by WIRED.
Named plaintiffs Tamiko Anderson and Patricia Kelley, who were hired by Steele in October of this year, claim they were not paid the agreed-upon wages, according to the complaint. America PAC’s name comes from the fact that it provided campaign services to Steel.
The plaintiffs also are suing for allegedly failing to reimburse business expenses and providing inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit claims a class of “all non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California who were employed as solicitors for Michelle Steele and engaged in solicitation activities at any time from October 30, 2023 to the present.” Seeking certification.
A spokesperson for the Steele campaign said, “The Steele campaign has no knowledge of these individuals, and they have never worked for the Steele campaign and do not currently work for the Steele campaign. The campaign is working with a super PAC with which we have no involvement. “I will not comment on the individuals involved.” said in a statement.
These allegations are different from those reported by WIRED earlier this week, when Michigan recruiters said they were deceived and threatened as part of Elon Musk and America PAC’s effort to get votes for Donald Trump. . The door knockers, who worked for a subcontractor for America PAC, were flown to Michigan, put in the back of a U-Haul, and told they had to meet unrealistic quotas or pay for a hotel room. Ta. When they arrived in Michigan, some were surprised to learn they were working to elect Donald Trump.
Blair Group, a North Carolina company that the complaint claims is a political consulting firm; Liberty Staffing Servicea Florida company that specializes in hiring and payrolling political campaign recruiters and other W2 employees, is also named as another defendant. Both men did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit also names an unnamed Johns Doe as a defendant.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the money.
“Plaintiffs, like other members of the class, were guaranteed an agreed-upon hourly rate.” [sic] When starting a job. However, Plaintiffs have been informed and believe that Defendants did not pay them at the correct hourly rate, but rather based on the number of homes surveyed. To date, Plaintiffs have yet to receive their unpaid wages,” the complaint states.
