Hourly customer service representatives at Cognizant and its TriZetto healthcare software unit may be covered by a proposed collective and class action alleging Cognizant required them to boot up computers and log in to phone and customer systems off the clock before every shift. No collective or class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a collective and class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation and Cognizant TriZetto Software Group, Inc. have not been found liable, no collective or class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is the Cognizant Overtime Lawsuit?
A proposed collective and class action filed on October 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey accuses Cognizant of failing to pay hourly customer service representatives for work done before they clocked in. The case is Selby v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., No. 2:26-cv-12922, and it names three defendants: Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, its North American subsidiary Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation, and Cognizant TriZetto Software Group, Inc., the healthcare software company Cognizant acquired in 2014.The complaint alleges that representatives had to start their computers and open a series of programs before their scheduled shifts, without pay, so they could be ready to take calls on time. The named plaintiff, an Illinois resident, says she has worked as an hourly representative since October 2019, first at TriZetto’s Earth City, Missouri office and now remotely. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. No court has ruled on any of the allegations.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
The Pre-Shift Routine the Complaint Describes
According to the complaint, Cognizant’s policy required representatives to be in “ready” status in the Cisco phone system within six minutes of their scheduled start, and those who were not faced discipline. To meet that deadline, the complaint says, representatives had to do the following before clocking in:- Turn on or wake their computer and sign in
- Connect to the company VPN using two-factor authentication on their phones
- Open Collabrio, which showed their schedule, breaks and lunch times
- Open Cisco Finesse and WebEx, the phone system that routed customer calls
- Open Salesforce for customer account information and Azure, which the complaint describes as a tool for transmitting electronic claims between healthcare providers and insurers
- Open Outlook and Teams, then switch to ready status in Cisco Finesse
The complaint estimates the routine took 10 to 15 minutes per shift, or more when computers and programs ran slowly. It argues that because representatives cannot do their jobs without these programs, starting them up is an integral part of the work and must be paid. It also alleges that, because representatives typically worked 40 or more hours a week, many of the unpaid minutes should have been paid at overtime rates.
Who the Lawsuit Covers
The complaint proposes three groups, each tied to different claims:- FLSA Collective: current and former hourly customer service representatives, or similar customer service positions, who worked for the defendants in the United States at any time in the past three years through final judgment.
- Rule 23 Illinois Class: current and former representatives who worked for the defendants at any location in Illinois during the applicable statutory period.
- Rule 23 Nationwide Class: current and former similarly situated representatives anywhere, for the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
The difference matters for workers. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, employees are not part of a collective unless they file a written consent to join, usually after a court approves sending them notice. The named plaintiff filed her own consent form with the complaint. The Illinois and nationwide classes, by contrast, would include members automatically if certified, unless they opt out.
Legal Claims and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings five claims:- Failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA Collective)
- Failure to pay minimum wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (Illinois Class)
- Failure to timely pay all wages earned under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Illinois Class)
- Breach of contract, for not paying the agreed hourly rate for every hour worked (Nationwide Class)
- Unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, pleaded as an alternative (Nationwide Class)
The lawsuit asks the court to authorize notice to the collective and to order the defendants to produce contact information for potential members, to certify the classes, and to declare the FLSA violations willful. It seeks unpaid wages and overtime, the damages and penalties available under the statutes, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Those are the plaintiff’s requests, not amounts anyone has been awarded.
What Happens Next
The defendants will respond to the complaint. In FLSA cases the plaintiff typically moves early for court-approved notice to the proposed collective, and the defendants often contest it. Where the case is filed also matters: Cognizant is headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey, and federal appeals courts including the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, have held that a nationwide FLSA collective must generally be brought where the employer is incorporated or headquartered. The case could also settle at any stage.There is nothing to file now. If the court authorizes notice, eligible representatives would receive it along with instructions and a deadline for joining the FLSA collective. Pre-shift login cases against call center employers are common; a similar suit accuses ADP of making customer service representatives log in off the clock.
Questions
Who is covered by the Cognizant overtime lawsuit?
The complaint proposes three groups: an FLSA collective of current and former hourly customer service representatives, or similar customer service employees, who worked for the defendants in the United States in the three years before final judgment; an Illinois class of those who worked at any Illinois location; and a nationwide class for the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. None of the groups has been certified.
How does an FLSA collective action differ from a class action?
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees are not automatically included. A court first decides whether to send notice to the proposed collective, and workers then join by filing a written consent form. In an ordinary Rule 23 class action, such as the Illinois state-law class proposed here, members are included automatically once a class is certified unless they opt out. The Cognizant complaint seeks both.
What pre-shift work does the complaint describe?
According to the complaint, before clocking in representatives had to start their computers, sign in, connect to the company VPN with two-factor authentication, and open Collabrio, Cisco Finesse, WebEx, Salesforce, Azure, Outlook and Teams so they could be in ready status within six minutes of their scheduled start. The complaint estimates this took 10 to 15 minutes or more per shift.
Is there any money available from the Cognizant lawsuit now?
No. The case was filed on October 2, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. No collective or class has been certified, there is no settlement or judgment, and there is nothing to file. Cognizant and TriZetto have not been found liable.
Is this related to the Cognizant 401(k) settlement or the TriZetto data breach?
No. This is a separate wage and hour case about pre-shift login time. Cognizant also has a proposed settlement over its 401(k) plan and has faced data breach litigation involving TriZetto, but those cases involve different claims and different groups of people.
Sources
• Collective Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Selby v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., No. 2:26-cv-12922 (D.N.J., filed October 2, 2026), Document 1: Cognizant overtime complaint (PDF).• Selby v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation docket on CourtListener.
