By doing so, CrossCountry violated a state law, which protects workers from wage-related issues, the suit lodged May 3 in a federal court in Illinois, claims.

The plaintiff, April Shakoor, who worked at CrossCountry from 2019 to 2020, says the mortgage shop imposed certain requirements such as high speed internet for remote work, but did not pay employees back for the expenses. She is asking the court to certify the suit as a class action. 

CrossCountry Mortgage declined to comment on pending litigation.

The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act mandates that employers compensate their workers for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred directly related to services performed for the employer.

The complaint lodged against CrossCountry lists a number expenditures that employees allegedly paid out of pocket but were not reimbursed for, such as high-speed internet, a dedicated phone, and home office expenses. To save on costs stemming from maintaining an office space, CrossCountry instead opted to "pass the expense of providing the same to plaintiff and the IWPCA class members without reimbursing them for any of the expenses for providing and maintaining the same," the suit said.

Per the plaintiff, CrossCountry required its employees to provide and maintain a "quiet, dedicated, clutter-free work space," designed to ensure that its brand standards were met. It also called for loan officers to work on its software platform, which necessitated a high-speed internet connection.

"CrossCountry violated the IWPCA by failing to adequately reimburse the plaintiff and the IWPCA class members for the equipment, internet, cell phone, and remote office expenses necessary to perform their job duties for CrossCountry," the complaint said.

If certified, the prospective class includes over 100 people and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the suit reads.

Early last year, CrossCountry was also accused of allegedly failing to pay workers in 2022 and illegally forcing a former worker to return a sizable sign-on bonus. This suit, too, was seeking class action status and claimed the lender violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey state law. The case was dismissed in late 2023.