A former St. Paul lifeguard has filed a class action suit against the city on behalf of at least 223 seasonal and part-time workers who allegedly did not receive sick pay benefits in 2017, 2018 and the first five months of 2019.

The St. Paul City Council approved a citywide earned sick and safe time mandate that awards workers an hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The ordinance, which applies to both public and private employers, took effect in 2017.

The 21-page class action suit filed by Benjamin Smith, who was still a high school student from 2017 to 2019, claims the city violated its own rules by failing to inform lifeguards and certain groups of workers of their rights under the ordinance.

Smith’s attorney said he has lined up witnesses who will attest to that, but the city and the plaintiffs remain far apart about how to resolve questions over unpaid benefits that have accrued to date.

“We’re not all that much further than we were three months ago,” said Benjamin Smith’s father, Mark Smith, who is representing him in the suit. “There were general talks about what a resolution could look like. They weren’t ever really close.”

Mark Smith said he is seeking upwards of $50,000 in damages, or $250 per violation of the ordinance for each impacted employee, on top of the accrued and unpaid sick leave.

“We believe each employee was violated multiple times,” he said. “The city has a different viewpoint of that.”

St. Paul City Attorney Lyndsey Olson said the city plans to review its own policies on sick time.

“We are committed to resolving this in a way that honors the values embodied in the ordinance, and protects the rights of workers in Saint Paul,” Olson said in an email.

While sick leave information was posted to the city’s website, Benjamin Smith’s lawsuit says supervisors failed to inform summer workers about the benefit, failed to explain it in an employee handbook as required by the ordinance, and failed to include sick leave information on pay stubs.

Benjamin Smith and other seasonal workers expressed confusion after receiving extra pay in their final paycheck of 2017. They later learned it was likely unused sick leave hours they never knew they had.

Benjamin Smith said he did not receive a similar bump after Labor Day of 2018. He was eventually told it was because he had worked his last day in mid-August.

The city has denied most of the claims in a 10-page legal response and has requested legal fees and other court expenses from the plaintiffs.

The original lawsuit was served on the city on May 28, and Mark Smith said the city requested multiple extensions of time to answer the complaint, which the Smiths agreed to. The city’s formal answer was served on Sept. 16.

Benjamin Smith says he requested sick leave in 2018 and was denied on the basis he had accrued 2.93 hours.

He said his supervisors expressed confusion and treated the request dismissively, telling him he would be paid out for his unused sick leave at the end of the year, which never happened.

Benjamin Smith said they also told him to check his pay stubs to find out how much sick time he had accrued. He believes he had many more hours than 2.93, though his pay stubs gave no indication of how many. Even if he had fewer hours, under the city ordinance he was entitled to use them upon request.