Submission Use
This HTML file is formatted for electronic review, browser printing, and conversion to PDF. The accompanying folder contains the original screenshots, payroll records, timesheet record, and email communications used in this summary.
Intended reviewing bodies: Denver Labor; the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division; and any other agency or court with jurisdiction. Each agency should independently determine jurisdiction, applicable law, and recoverable remedies.
Important: This is a claimant-prepared evidence index, not an official agency finding. Statements identified as allegations or claimant positions have not yet been adjudicated.
1. Executive Summary
William T. Lodge alleges that an app-based attendance or geofence failure during his July 22, 2026 Ally Waste assignment caused GigSmart’s system or requester process to treat him as absent while he was actively working a required multi-location route. GigSmart later corrected the July 22 timesheet, but the separate Friday, July 24 assignment was not restored.
New Ascen portal screenshots establish that a distinct July 24 assignment record existed under Assignment ID 6a6097e56d0bdad2d1a8c3b2. The portal identifies the claimant, Ally Waste as client, GigSmart as partner, Vertex Fleet as the work location, W-2 classification, a July 24 start date, and a regular rate of $22.00. The record displayed status “live” while its Timesheets tab displayed “No data available.”
Core dispute: Ascen’s response documented payment for completed July 22 and July 23 work, but did not resolve the separate July 24 assignment loss. The claimant asks agencies to obtain the underlying assignment, cancellation, geofence, requester, and audit records and determine whether $231 or another remedy is legally recoverable.
Evidence distinction: The July 22 GigSmart screenshot shows cancellation “after hire” of the shift then being worked. The existence and continued cancellation of the separate Friday shift are established by the email chain and the July 24 Ascen assignment record—not by relabeling the July 22 screenshot as a Friday screenshot.
2. Parties and Employment Structure
Claimant / WorkerWilliam T. LodgeW-2 worker assigned through the GigSmart / Ascen structure.
Employer of RecordAscen Workforce, LLCPayroll and employment-record administrator identified on earnings statements.
Platform / PartnerGigSmart Inc.Managed assignment scheduling, app timekeeping, support communications, and requester interaction.
Client / RequesterAlly WasteClient associated with the July 22 and July 24 Trash Collector assignments.
Reporting locationVertex Fleet (CO Yard)8101 East 40th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80207.
Job / AssignmentJob 9403Trash Collector – Ally Waste [CO, US] (v1); Assignment ID 6a6097e56d0bdad2d1a8c3b2.
3. Statement of Documented Facts and Claimant Allegations
Documents directly establish
- The July 22 Ally Waste assignment was treated as W-2 work and paid at $22 per hour.
- The July 22 paystub records 10.5 hours and $231 gross.
- GigSmart told Lodge to continue working while it contacted the requester.
- GigSmart later confirmed that the July 22 timesheet was corrected.
- GigSmart wrote that the requester confirmed the Friday shift would remain canceled.
- Ascen’s portal contains a separate July 24 assignment record naming Lodge, Ally Waste, and GigSmart.
- The July 24 portal record shows a $22 regular rate and no timesheet data.
Claimant alleges / agency should verify
- The July 22 “off-site” event was caused by a single-site geofence or timekeeping design that did not match a route requiring travel among apartment communities.
- The incorrect attendance event caused removal from the July 24 assignment.
- The July 24 assignment was identical in paid duration to July 22 and would have produced $231 gross.
- The claimant declined or lost another Friday work opportunity because he had accepted the Ally Waste assignment.
- Ascen, GigSmart, and/or Ally Waste possessed records sufficient to correct the future assignment after the July 22 timesheet was corrected.
Record inconsistency: The Ascen portal marks “Is Travel: No,” while the contemporaneous July 22 report states the actual duties required travel to multiple apartment communities. That mismatch may be relevant to the off-site/geofence event and should be investigated through assignment instructions, requester records, GPS logs, and route records.
4. Chronology
| Date / time | Event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Before July 22 | Claimant was assigned to Ally Waste work through the GigSmart / Ascen W-2 arrangement. Claimant states he also had a confirmed Friday assignment. | Exhibits A, E, and G. |
| July 22, about 4:30–5:00 a.m. | Claimant reports arriving early and beginning the Ally Waste assignment; the paid record ultimately reflects 10.5 hours at $22 per hour. | Exhibits F and J. |
| July 22, about 5:30 a.m. | Claimant reports that the app stopped the time clock and displayed an off-site condition after the route left the original reporting location. | Exhibit F. |
| July 22, 11:21 a.m. | Claimant reports being canceled while actively working and asks why Friday was also canceled. The embedded app screenshot states “You were canceled from this Shift after hire” for the July 22 shift. | Exhibit B. |
| July 22, 11:25–11:32 a.m. | GigSmart asks whether claimant is actively working; claimant confirms he is. GigSmart responds: “keep working” and says it will contact the requester. | Exhibit C. |
| July 22, 12:05 p.m. | GigSmart states it cannot act without client approval and instructs claimant to continue working while awaiting a requester response. Ascen separately directs shift issues to GigSmart. | Exhibit D and original email chain. |
| July 22, 1:25–1:58 p.m. | GigSmart states the client is in control and can put claimant back on the Friday schedule. Claimant requests a formal review and correction. | Exhibit E. |
| July 22, 6:18 p.m. | Claimant sends a detailed contemporaneous account of the off-site alert, stopped clock, multi-location route, battery drain, and lost shifts. | Exhibit F. |
| July 23, 7:56 a.m. | GigSmart confirms the July 22 timesheet was corrected and states: “The Requester has confirmed that Friday’s Shift will remain cancelled.” | Exhibit G. |
| July 23–24 | Ascen pay records show $231 gross for the July 22 Ally Waste work and $144.68 gross for the separate July 23 Acme work. | Exhibits J and K. |
| July 26 | Claimant submits a formal compensation request for the lost assignment. | Exhibit H. |
| July 29 | Ascen states it administers payroll for hours worked and supplies two paystubs and a timesheet history, while directing scheduling questions to GigSmart or the client. | Exhibits I–K and the email response supplied by claimant. |
| August 4 | Claimant captures Ascen portal screens showing the distinct July 24 assignment record, status “live,” $22 rate, and no timesheet data; supplemental evidence is sent to Ascen, GigSmart, and Denver Labor. | Exhibits A1–A4. |
5. Issues Presented for Agency Review
- Assignment existence and acceptance: What do the original posting, hire/acceptance log, notifications, and audit history show about the July 24 assignment?
- Cause of cancellation: Was the July 24 removal triggered by the July 22 off-site/no-show event, requester action, platform automation, or another reason?
- Record correction: Once the July 22 timesheet and attendance determination were corrected, why was the July 24 assignment not restored?
- System suitability: Did the assignment require multi-location travel despite portal fields indicating “Is Travel: No,” and did that mismatch contribute to geofence/timekeeping failure?
- Employer responsibility: What responsibilities are held by Ascen as Employer of Record, GigSmart as staffing/platform partner, and Ally Waste as client/requester?
- Compensation and remedy: Does applicable law, contract, policy, or local ordinance provide compensation or another remedy for the canceled accepted assignment and related reliance loss?
- Record preservation and accuracy: Were attendance/no-show records, personnel records, requester notes, and cancellation audit logs corrected and preserved?
6. Amount Claimed and Calculation
Claimed direct lost wages$231.00 grossClaimant’s stated amount for the July 24 assignment.
Calculation basis10.5 hours × $22Based on the prior July 22 Ally Waste pay record and claimant’s statement that the Friday shift was identical.
Verification needed: The July 24 portal screenshots establish the $22 rate but do not display the scheduled hours. The agency should obtain the original assignment schedule and audit metadata. If the scheduled compensable hours differ from 10.5, the direct wage calculation may need adjustment. The claimant also reports reliance loss from passing up another Friday opportunity, but the amount and legal recoverability require separate proof and agency determination.
7. Requested Agency Action
The claimant asks the reviewing agency to:
- Open or supplement the existing complaint record using this evidence package.
- Confirm the July 24 assignment’s posting, acceptance, rate, schedule, status history, and cancellation time.
- Issue records requests or subpoenas, as authorized, for the assignment audit log, requester communications, GPS/geofence events, time-clock records, push notifications, support tickets, and internal notes.
- Identify who decided that the Friday shift would remain canceled and the stated reason.
- Determine whether the corrected July 22 attendance record required restoration, compensation, or another remedy.
- Review whether the W-2 Employer-of-Record and staffing/platform structure affected responsibility for the employment action.
- Determine the amount of recoverable wages, penalties, damages, or other relief under the agency’s governing authority.
- Require correction of any remaining false no-show, attendance, or performance record.
- Direct preservation of all relevant electronically stored information and prohibit retaliation for protected wage complaints, to the extent applicable.
8. Ascen Portal Proof of the July 24 Assignment
These images were supplied by the claimant on August 4, 2026. They should be authenticated against Ascen’s server-side assignment and audit records.
9. Exhibit Index
Open each source file in a new tab. Original PDFs are preserved in the accompanying exhibits folder.
| Exhibit | Document | Date | Relevance | File |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1–A4 | Ascen assignment portal screenshots | Captured August 4, 2026 | Show Assignment ID 6a6097e56d0bdad2d1a8c3b2, status “live,” July 24 start date, W-2 classification, Ally Waste client, GigSmart partner, Vertex Fleet work location, $22 regular rate, and “No data available” under Timesheets. | View images |
| B | Initial report and cancelled after hire screenshot | July 22, 2026, 11:21 a.m. | Initial report to GigSmart and Ascen; embedded app screenshot states “You were canceled from this Shift after hire” for the July 22 shift. | Open PDF |
| C | GigSmart keep working contact requester | July 22, 2026, 11:32 a.m. | GigSmart tells claimant to keep working and says it will contact the requester to get the issue fixed. | Open PDF |
| D | GigSmart awaiting requester approval | July 22, 2026, 12:05 p.m. | GigSmart says it cannot act without client approval and instructs claimant to continue working. | Open PDF |
| E | GigSmart client controls Friday restoration | July 22, 2026, 1:58 p.m. | Email chain records GigSmart’s statement that the client could put claimant back on the Friday schedule. | Open PDF |
| F | Contemporaneous app geofence failure report | July 22, 2026, 6:18 p.m. | Contemporaneous description of the off-site alert, stopped time clock, multi-location route, battery drain, and resulting shift losses. | Open PDF |
| G | GigSmart Friday shift remains cancelled | July 23, 2026, 7:56 a.m. | GigSmart confirms the July 22 timesheet was corrected and states that the requester confirmed Friday’s shift would remain canceled. | Open PDF |
| H | Formal compensation request | July 26, 2026 | Formal request for compensation based on the corrected attendance record and lost assignment. | Open PDF |
| I | Ascen timesheet history | Produced by Ascen | Ascen timesheet screen showing paid July 22 and July 23 entries, with no July 24 completed-timesheet entry. | Open PDF |
| J | Ascen paystub July 22 Ally Waste | Pay period July 19–25, 2026 | Paystub showing 10.5 hours at $22.00 per hour and $231.00 gross for the July 22 Ally Waste assignment. | Open PDF |
| K | Ascen paystub July 23 Acme | Pay period July 19–25, 2026 | Paystub showing 7.5 hours at $19.29 per hour for the separate July 23 Acme assignment. | Open PDF |
10. Claimant Certification and Contact
I, William T. Lodge, submit this file as a good-faith organization of records in my possession concerning the July 22 and July 24, 2026 Ally Waste assignments. I understand that the reviewing agency will independently assess authenticity, jurisdiction, credibility, applicable law, and available remedies. I request that source records held by Ascen, GigSmart, and Ally Waste be obtained and compared with these materials.
William T. Lodge
Email: avmonkey@gmail.com
Agency case reference: WL-GS-2026-0724
Denver Labor distribution used: wagecomplaints@denvergov.org and Monique.Witcher@denvergov.org. Copies were also directed to Ascen Support, GigSmart Support, and GigSmart Legal.