A federal judge in Georgia has declined a bid by GEICO call center workers to pursue a collective action lawsuit, in which they alleged the company failed to pay them for time spent starting up their systems and preparing for customer service calls.

U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell ruled this week that the plaintiffs did not successfully show a shared unlawful practice by GEICO, nor did they adequately demonstrate how they were denied overtime pay. The court also noted inconsistencies across various call centers and that some claims were too old to pursue under the three-year statute of limitations.

“For this reason alone, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied,” Judge Treadwell wrote in his decision.

The lead plaintiff, Chris Rice, and his legal team claimed that over 1,000 sales employees from 12 GEICO call centers—including locations in Macon, Georgia, and Lakeland, Florida—were underpaid due to the insurer’s procedures. According to U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals standards, plaintiffs must prove that others in the proposed group should be notified of the lawsuit to decide whether they want to opt in.

However, the plaintiffs adjusted their legal approach and did not respond directly to several key arguments made by GEICO’s defense team, the judge noted.

Court documents explained that GEICO relied on software platforms such as Cisco Finesse, AWS Anytime Connect, and Workday to monitor employee activity and hours worked.

“Plaintiffs initially alleged GEICO based compensation solely on time logged into Finesse,” the judge explained. If that were true, it would imply that workers weren’t paid for tasks performed outside of the Finesse system—such as powering up their computers, signing into necessary programs, fixing technical issues, or preparing for customer calls.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that most employers must compensate hourly staff for computer boot-up and related time.

But the plaintiffs’ legal team—based in Atlanta, Birmingham, and Nashville—“recently conceded that the data show no relationship between Finesse login time and time tracked in Workday, aligning with GEICO’s evidence,” the judge pointed out.

Later, the plaintiffs asserted that managers had told employees to report a fixed 38.75 hours per week, regardless of their actual work time. That claim, however, lacked supporting evidence, according to the court.

An expert analysis revealed that employees often received pay for more time than they were logged into the Finesse system. Some testimonies suggested supervisors instructed remote workers—those working from home—not to record time spent resolving connectivity or equipment issues, but this directive did not apply to in-office staff.

In the end, Judge Treadwell denied the motion for conditional class certification—but did so without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may revise their arguments and refile the motion at a later time.