Smoothstack Lawsuit: Beware of Unlawful Wage Scheme and Employment Contracts

In recent months, Smoothstack—a tech staffing company with a reputation for offering entry-level IT opportunities—has come under fire due to a class action lawsuit.

Allegations claim that Smoothstack enforces a questionable employment scheme, requiring employees to sign restrictive Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs).

These provisions make it extremely costly for workers to leave early, sometimes reaching penalties over $23,000.

Through this article, I aim to shed light on the legal concerns surrounding Smoothstack’s practices, specifically its TRAPs and alleged wage issues.

Furthermore, by examining the Smoothstack lawsuit details, I hope to help job seekers and employees understand the potential risks when considering employment under similar contracts.

TBH, Smoothstack’s case is a reminder of the importance of reviewing employment agreements carefully. This is especially true for those who impose high fees or wage practices that could affect financial stability.

If you’re in the job market or considering a position with Smoothstack, understanding these legal issues can help you make an informed decision and avoid unexpected obligations.

Key Findings

• Smoothstack’s employment agreements reportedly include a Training Repayment Agreement Provision (TRAP) requiring employees to pay over $23,000 if they leave before reaching 4,000 billable hours, which can restrict their freedom to seek other job opportunities.

• The lawsuit claims Smoothstack violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying wages for training and compensating some employees at minimum wage despite longer working hours, especially during client gaps.

• This lawsuit has drawn the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which examines TRAPs like Smoothstack’s that may unlawfully restrict employees through excessive fees or restrictive agreements.

Smoothstack Lawsuit and the Company Overview

Smoothstack is a tech staffing and training company specializing in launching careers for individuals in information technology. It primarily targets recent graduates and entry-level professionals who want to enter the tech industry but lack hands-on experience.

The company recruits candidates, places them into intensive training programs, and then deploys them as consultants with client companies.

This model allows Smoothstack to meet the needs of companies looking for IT talent. At the same time, it gives newcomers a structured pathway into the industry.

In April 2023, Smoothstack was hit with a class action lawsuit filed by former employee Justin O’Brien.

The suit brings serious allegations about Smoothstack’s employment practices, specifically targeting their use of Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs).

According to the lawsuit, these agreements impose a financial penalty of over $23,000 on employees who leave before accumulating 4,000 billable hours. Thus, it effectively traps them in their roles.

This high fee has raised concerns about fairness. This is because it discourages employees from seeking other job opportunities that may better align with their career goals.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Smoothstack failed to pay employees properly during their initial training periods.

Plaintiffs allege that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not compensating them for their time spent training. Additionally, they only paid minimum wage during gaps between client placements, despite requiring employees to remain on standby.

These allegations have attracted regulatory attention, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reviewing the fairness of TRAPs in employment contracts.

Smoothstack’s case highlights the potential risks of restrictive employment agreements. This is especially for those entering the tech field and looking for growth without financial penalties holding them back. 

Unlawful Wage Scheme

The core allegation against Smoothstack involves claims of wage theft and labor law violations.

According to the plaintiffs, Smoothstack requires employees to work extensive training hours without fair compensation.

Employees often work long hours during the initial training period, which is unpaid or paid at a minimal rate. Once placed on assignments, employees may be paid only minimum wage during periods between client projects. This happens despite being on call for potential assignments.

These claims raise significant questions about compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This law sets standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor for most U.S. employers.

Under the FLSA, employers must pay at least the federal minimum wage. Furthermore, they must provide overtime pay at one and a half times the regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 per week.

If Smoothstack did not pay employees for training hours or paid only minimum wage without overtime during on-call periods, these practices could constitute wage theft.

Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that Smoothstack violated state-specific labor laws. This may have stricter wage payments, overtime, and employee classification requirements.

In situations like these, wage theft can manifest through various practices, including:

• Unpaid Overtime: Not compensating employees for hours worked over the standard 40-hour workweek.

• Minimum Wage Violations: Paying employees less than the federal or state minimum wage, especially during mandatory training.

• Improper Deductions: Withholding wages for certain costs or failing to pay for required standby or waiting time.

These practices reduce the income employees rightfully earn. Moreover, it places them in difficult financial situations, particularly for entry-level professionals dependent on consistent pay.

If Smoothstack fails to comply with wage and hour laws, it could face legal repercussions. For instance, they could face fines, back pay, and damages for affected employees.

Employment Contracts

The lawsuit also scrutinizes Smoothstack’s employment contracts, which include restrictive clauses that may limit employees’ freedom to pursue other opportunities. 

Key issues within these contracts include Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs), non-compete clauses, and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). These can create barriers for employees if enforced too strictly.

Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs)

One of the most contested elements in Smoothstack’s contracts is the TRAP. It requires employees to repay over $23,000 if they leave before completing 4,000 billable hours, usually over two years.

This fee is considered prohibitive, effectively binding employees to the company under threat of significant financial penalty. TRAPs are often challenged in court for being excessively punitive and restricting worker mobility. This is because they make leaving a role unaffordable.

Non-Compete Clauses

Many companies include non-compete clauses to protect proprietary information, yet these clauses can be problematic if they are too broad.

Smoothstack’s non-compete terms might prevent employees from working in similar roles at other companies for a period. Eventually, this can hinder their career advancement.

Some states, like California, prohibit or heavily restrict non-compete agreements, emphasizing that courts often deem overly broad non-competes unenforceable.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and Restrictive Covenants

NDAs are common in many industries to protect confidential information. However, overly broad NDAs and restrictive covenants can discourage employees from reporting legal violations or pursuing other career paths.

If an NDA prevents former employees from discussing unfair employment practices, it can serve as a tool for silence rather than legitimate business protection.

How to Protect Yourself as a Smoothstack Employee?

O’Brien and other plaintiffs allege several issues. For instance, unpaid wages during the initial weeks of training and long work hours with only minimum wage paid for 40 hours despite often working up to 80 hours weekly are a few of them.

Additionally, they were also accused of placing the employees on indefinite minimum-wage assignments between client projects.

If you are an employee working here or are facing similar issues at your workplace, there are a few things that you need to do to protect yourself and your rights as an employee:

Document Everything

Keeping thorough records is your best line of defense. Track your work hours carefully, including start and end times, break periods, and any overtime worked.

Save copies of pay stubs and any receipts for deductions taken from your pay. Also, keep all written communications with management, such as emails, contracts, and training agreements.

If you experience any irregularities, detailed documentation can help validate your claims if you need to present them in a legal setting.

Consult with an Attorney

Employment laws can be complex, especially when dealing with non-compete agreements, wage claims, and restrictive clauses.

Speaking with an attorney specializing in labor law can help you understand your rights and options.

They can review your employment contract and provide insight into the legality of certain terms. Additionally, they can advise on steps you can take. Many attorneys offer free consultations, which could be beneficial as a first step.

Join a Class Action Lawsuit

If there is an ongoing class action lawsuit against Smoothstack, be a part of it. Joining could provide a way to seek justice alongside other affected employees.

Class actions allow employees with similar claims to pool resources and collectively seek compensation. This increases the chance of a favorable outcome.

Additionally, joining a class action might give you more legal leverage than pursuing a claim alone. This is because these lawsuits often attract attention and scrutiny.

Wage Theft and Labor Law Violations in the Tech Industry

Wage theft and labor law violations have become alarmingly common in the tech industry. As companies rely heavily on contract and freelance labor to manage expenses, certain practices risk exploiting workers. 

Data from the Economic Policy Institute shows that low-wage workers across many sectors lose an estimated $15 billion yearly to wage theft. This includes unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and wrongful deductions.

Although not all tech workers fall under “low-wage,” restrictive practices and misclassification issues still affect a significant portion of the workforce.

For instance, in a 2022 report, roughly 10% of tech professionals reported wage theft practices. This was often tied to unpaid overtime and deductions for training programs.

Some employees, hired as “independent contractors,” were denied benefits they’d typically receive as full-time staff. This helps in creating a loophole for companies to bypass legal obligations.

Restrictive covenants, such as non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, are common in tech employment contracts but can pose serious red flags.

Studies show that approximately 18% of U.S. employees are bound by non-compete clauses, even in cases where they may be legally unenforceable. These clauses can limit a worker’s future career mobility and bargaining power in tech.

Some contracts also include non-solicitation clauses, preventing employees from working with clients even after leaving the company.

When companies use overly broad or ambiguous terms in these agreements, it can create situations where employees feel trapped and unable to seek better opportunities without legal consequences.

Case Studies and Precedents: Similar Cases to the Smoothstack Lawsuit

Even though you might feel take the Smoothstack lawsuit is a shock, it is not one of a kind. Several other tech companies and training programs have faced legal challenges similar to the Smoothstack lawsuit, particularly regarding employment contracts and wage practices.

One prominent example is the lawsuit against Revature, a tech training and staffing company that, like Smoothstack, offers training programs with the promise of tech job placements.

In recent lawsuits, former Revature employees claimed they were subjected to restrictive employment contracts, including hefty financial penalties for leaving before a specified contract period, which they argued limited their career mobility and coerced them into staying in low-paying jobs.

Another example involves Infosys, an IT consulting giant that faced allegations of wage theft for paying foreign workers less than the wages specified under the law. This is also a potential issue in the Smoothstack case. Infosys settled the case but agreed to reforms in its wage practices for its U.S.-based employees.

Court decisions in these cases highlight a key legal concern: the enforceability of non-compete clauses and repayment agreements. Many states, including California, have struck down non-compete clauses in employee contracts as overly restrictive.

When tech companies attempt to enforce these, courts have often ruled in favor of employees, emphasizing that employment contracts should not unreasonably restrict individuals’ career paths.

Legal opinions also frequently address employees’ minimum wage and overtime rights, which is central to the Smoothstack case. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protects employees’ rights to fair pay, and when companies impose deductions or fail to meet minimum wage standards, courts have often ruled these practices unlawful.

Future of Employment Contracts and Restrictive Clauses

The lawsuit seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for alleged unpaid wages and unlawful penalties restricting workers’ freedom to leave Smoothstack without facing costly fees.

Overall, restrictive clauses such as TRAPs, non-competes, and broad NDAs have come under scrutiny by labor advocates, as they can create environments where employees feel “trapped” in unfavorable work conditions.

Smoothstack’s contract terms will likely face legal challenges, with plaintiffs arguing that the clauses go beyond what is necessary to protect the business and unduly restrict employees’ rights.

Regulatory bodies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are increasingly examining these agreements, particularly when they disproportionately impact early-career professionals and prevent them from finding other work.

The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how far companies can go with restrictive contracts and raise awareness among employees about their rights under labor laws.

For those considering employment with companies using such agreements, this case is an important reminder to review contracts closely and seek clarification on restrictive terms before signing. 

Read Also:

• Ozempic Lawsuit: Can You Get Justice in Healthcare?
• Kennedy Funding Lawsuit and the Exploitation of Arkansas Statute of Frauds
• 72 Sold Lawsuit Exposed the Deceptive Marketing Strategies of Real Estate Agents!