`
`
`
`Matthew S. Parmet (Texas Bar # 2406719)
`(seeking admission pro hac vice)
`matt@parmet.law
`PARMET PC
`3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
`Houston, TX 77056
`phone 713 999 5228
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`Lynnettte Hudson, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Case No. _______________________
` FLSA Collective Action
` FED. R. CIV. P. 23 Class Action
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Hallmark Behavioral Health @ Lago,
`LLC d/b/a Hallmark Assisted Living @
`Lago, LLC d/b/a Hallmark Assisted
`Living @ Largo, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`and
`Plaintiff’s Original Class
`Collective Action Complaint for
`Damages and Declaratory Relief
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`
`
`Lynnette Hudson brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
`
`and other damages owed by Hallmark Behavioral Health @ Lago, LLC d/b/a
`
`Hallmark Assisted Living @ Lago, LLC d/b/a Hallmark Assisted Living @ Largo,
`
`LLC (“Hallmark”).
`
`
`Hudson and other hourly workers for Hallmark regularly worked in
`
`excess of 40 hours in a week.
`
`
`Hallmark did not pay Hudson and the other workers the proper overtime
`
`rate for all of these hours.
`
`
`Instead, Hallmark paid Hudson and the other workers the same hourly
`
`rate, even when they should have received an overtime premium.
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Hallmark’s failure to pay overtime wages violates the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the Arizona Wage Act, ARS 23-
`
`350, et seq.
`
`
`Hallmark also didn’t provide Hudson or its other employees with the
`
`notices and statements required under the Arizona Fair Wage and Healthy Families
`
`Act (the “Arizona Sick Leave Law”), ARS § 23-371, et seq.
`
`
`That is, Hallmark didn’t tell Hudson or its other employees about their
`
`rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
`
`
`And Hallmark didn’t provide Hudson or its other employees with
`
`statements of their earned paid sick time, so that they would know how much they
`
`had earned or used, or that were or available to them.
`
`
`By doing this, Hallmark interfered with the Hudson and its other
`
`employees’ rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages, earned paid sick
`
`time, and other damages owed by Hallmark to these workers, along with the penalties,
`
`interest, and other remedies provided by law.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
` This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 because this action involves a federal question under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b).
`
` This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the
`
`jurisdictional provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
` The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law sub-classes
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
` Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because
`
`Hallmark resides in this District.
` Hudson worked for Hallmark in this District.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` Therefore, venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`occurred in this District.
`
`PARTIES
` Hudson was, at all relevant times, an employee of Hallmark.
` Hudson was an hourly employee of Hallmark.
` Hudson worked for Hallmark from October 2020 to October 2021.
` Hudson’s written consent is attached as Exhibit A.
` Hudson represents at least three classes of similarly situated Hallmark
`
`workers.
`
` Hudson represents a collective of similarly situated hourly employees
`
`under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This “FLSA Collective” is defined as:
`
`All current or former hourly employees of Hallmark working in
`the United States who were, at any point in the past three years,
`paid “straight time for overtime.”
` Hudson represents a class of similarly situated hourly employees under
`
`Arizona law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This “Arizona Overtime
`
`Class” is defined as:
`
`All current or former hourly employees of Hallmark working in
`Arizona who were, at any point in the past year, paid “straight
`time for overtime.”
` Hudson represents a class of similarly situated employees under Arizona
`
`law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This “Arizona Sick Leave Class”
`
`is defined as:
`
`All current or former employees of Hallmark working in
`Arizona at any point in the past three years.
` Together, throughout this Complaint, the Arizona Overtime Class
`
`members and Arizona Sick Leave Class members are referred to as the “Arizona Class
`
`Members.”
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` Together, throughout this Complaint, the FLSA Collective members and
`
`Arizona Class Members are referred to as the “Similarly Situated Workers.”
` Hallmark Behavioral Health @ Lago, LLC d/b/a Hallmark Assisted
`Living @ Lago, LLC d/b/a Hallmark Assisted Living @ Largo, LLC (“Hallmark”)
`
`is an Arizona limited liability company.
` Hallmark’s headquarters and principal place of business is in Maricopa
`
`County, Arizona.
` Hallmark may be served by service upon its registered agent, Mike
`Rogers, 1550 E. McKellips Rd., Ste. 109, Mesa, AZ 85203, or by any other method
`
`allowed by law.
`
`COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA
` At all relevant times, Hallmark was an employer of Hudson within the
`
`meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
` At all relevant times, Hallmark was and is an employer of the Similarly
`
`Situated Workers within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
` Hallmark was and is part of an enterprise within the meaning of Section
`
`3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
` During at least the last three years, Hallmark has had gross annual sales
`
`in excess of $500,000.
` Hallmark was and is part of an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
`
`production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §
`
`203(s)(1).
` Hallmark employs many workers, including Hudson, who are engaged
`
`in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or who handle, sell, or
`
`otherwise work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for
`
`commerce by any person.
` The goods and materials handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by
`
`Hudson, and other Hallmark employees and that have been moved in interstate
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`commerce include, but are not limited to, prescription and non-prescription medical
`
`supplies and equipment, and pharmaceuticals.
`
`FACTS
` Hallmark supplies in-home caregivers and caregiving services to its
`
`clients.
`
` For at least the last three years, Hallmark has employed 15 or more
`
`employees.
` Hudson was an hourly employee of Hallmark.
` Hallmark never paid Hudson a salary.
` Hallmark never paid Hudson on a fee basis.
` Hallmark paid Hudson by the hour.
` Hallmark paid Hudson $15 per hour.
` Hudson reported the hours she worked to Hallmark on a regular basis.
` Hudson’s hours are reflected in Hallmark’s records.
` Hallmark paid Hudson at the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
`
`including those in excess of 40 in a week.
` Hudson normally worked more than 40 hours in a week.
` For example, for the bi-monthly pay period ending May 31, 2021,
`
`Hudson worked 155 hours for Hallmark.
` For that pay period, Hallmark paid Hudson at her hourly rate of $15 per
`
`hour for all 155 hours worked:
`
` Thus, in each of the weeks for the May 31, 2021, pay period, Hudson
`
`worked more than 40 hours, but was not paid an overtime premium for any overtime
`
`hour worked.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
` Rather than receiving time-and-a-half as required by the FLSA for all
`
`hours over 40 in a workweek, Hudson only received “straight-time” pay for overtime
`
`hours worked.
` This “straight-time-for-overtime” payment scheme violates the FLSA.
` This “straight-time-for-overtime” payment scheme violates Arizona law.
` Hallmark was aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
` Hallmark was aware of the overtime requirements of Arizona law.
` Hallmark nonetheless failed to pay certain hourly employees, such as
`
`Hudson, overtime.
` Hallmark’s failure to pay overtime to these hourly workers was, and is, a
`
`willful violation of the FLSA.
` Hudson started working for Hallmark in October 2021.
` When Hudson started working for Hallmark, Hallmark did not provide
`
`her with notice of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` When Hudson started working for Hallmark, Hallmark did not provide
`
`her with any notice of her rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Throughout her employment with Hallmark, Hallmark did not provide
`
`Hudson with the amount of earned paid sick time available to her.
` Throughout her employment with Hallmark, Hallmark did not provide
`
`Hudson with the amount of earned paid sick time taken by her.
` Throughout her employment with Hallmark, Hallmark did not provide
`
`Hudson with the amount of earned paid sick time she had received.
` Hallmark did not provide any notice of Hudson’s earned paid sick time
`
`amounts in an attachment to her regular paycheck.
` Hallmark did not provide any notice of Hudson’s earned paid sick time
`
`amounts in her regular paycheck.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
` For example, Hudson’s paycheck for the bi-monthly pay period ending
`
`May 31, 2021, contained no reference to earned, used, or available paid sick time at
`
`all.
`
` Without notification of her rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law,
`
`Hudson couldn’t exercise those rights.
` Without knowing the amounts of her earned paid sick time, Hudson
`
`couldn’t use her earned paid sick time.
` Without Hallmark telling her the amount of her earned paid sick time
`
`and used earned paid sick time, Hudson had no way to exercise her rights under the
`
`Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark’s refusal to provide notices and statements under the Arizona
`
`Sick Leave Law interfered with Hudson’s rights under the law.
` Hudson was entitled to earn a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick
`
`time for every 30 hours she worked for Hallmark.
` Hallmark’s failure to provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave Law
`
`interfered with Hudson’s rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark’s failure to provide earned sick time statements interfered with
`
`Hudson’s rights under the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark’s failure to provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave Law was,
`
`and is, a willful violation of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark’s failure to provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave Law was,
`
`and is, a willful violation of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
` Hallmark’s illegal “straight time for overtime” policy extends well
`
`beyond Hudson.
`
`
`It is the “straight time for overtime” payment plan that is the “common
`
`policy or plan that violate[s] the law.” (McDonald v. Ricardo’s on the Beach, Inc., No. CV
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`11-93366 PSG (MRWx), 2013 WL 228334, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013) [internal
`
`quotations omitted].)
` The illegal pay practices Hallmark imposed on Hudson were likewise
`
`imposed on the FLSA Collective Members.
` Hudson employs many other workers who worked over 40 hours per
`
`week and were subject to Hallmark’s same pattern, practice, and policy of failing to
`
`pay overtime at 1.5x the workers’ regular rates of pay.
` Numerous individuals were victimized by this pattern, practice, and
`
`policy which is in willful violation of the FLSA.
` Based on her experience and tenure with Hallmark, Hudson is aware that
`
`Hallmark’s illegal practices were imposed on the FLSA Collective Members.
` These workers were similarly situated within the meaning of the FLSA.
` Hallmark’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by
`
`the FLSA result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are
`
`not dependent on the personal circumstances of the FLSA Collective Members.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
` The illegal practices Hallmark imposed on Hudson were likewise
`
`imposed on the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members.
` Numerous other individuals who worked with Hudson were were not
`
`properly compensated for all hours worked and were not provided sick leave notices
`
`and compensation as required by Arizona law.
` The Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Classes are so numerous that
`
`joinder of all members of each or both classes is impracticable.
` Hallmark imposed uniform practices and policies on Hudson and the
`
`Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members regardless of any individualized
`
`factors.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
` Based on her experience and tenure with Hallmark, Hudson is aware that
`
`Hallmark’s illegal practices were imposed on the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave
`
`Class Members.
` Arizona Overtime Class Members were all not paid proper overtime
`
`when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
` Arizona Sick Leave Class Members were all denied overtime pay and not
`
`provided notices in accordance with Arizona law.
` Hallmark’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation in
`
`accordance with Arizona law results from generally applicable, systematic policies,
`
`and practices which are not dependent on the personal circumstances of the Arizona
`
`Overtime Class Members.
` Hallmark’s failure to provide sick leave and notices in accordance with
`
`Arizona law results from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which
`
`are not dependent on the personal circumstances of the Arizona Sick Leave Class
`
`Members.
` Hudson’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the
`
`Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members.
` Hudson has no interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the members of
`
`the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Classes. Like each member of the proposed
`
`classes, Hudson has an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime wages and other
`
`damages owed under the law.
` A class action, such as this one, is superior to other available means for
`
`fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.
` Absent this action, many Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class
`
`members likely will not obtain redress of their injuries and Hallmark will reap the
`
`unjust benefits of violating Arizona law.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
` Furthermore, even if some of the FLSA and Arizona Class members
`
`could afford individual litigation against Hallmark, it would be unduly burdensome to
`
`the judicial system.
` Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy
`
`and parity among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for
`
`judicial consistency.
` The questions of law and fact common to each of the Arizona Overtime
`
`and Sick Leave Class members predominate over any questions affecting solely the
`
`individual members. Among the common questions of law and fact are:
`a. Whether the Arizona Overtime Class Members were not paid
`
`overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in
`
`excess of 40 in a workweek;
`b. Whether Hallmark’s “straight time for overtime” pay scheme,
`
`without any overtime premium regardless of the number of hours
`
`worked, violated the Arizona Wage Act;
`c. Whether Hallmark knowingly benefitted at the expense of the
`
`Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members; and
`d. Whether allowing Hallmark to retain the benefit it obtained at the
`
`expense of the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members
`
`would be unjust.
`e. Whether Hallmark’s decision not to issue notice under the
`
`Arizona Sick Leave Law was willful; and
`f. Whether Hallmark’s decision not to provide statements of earned,
`
`used, and available sick time under the Arizona Sick Leave Law
`
`was willful.
` Hudson’s claims are typical of the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave
`
`Class Members. Hudson, and the Arizona Overtime and Sick Leave Class Members
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`have all sustained damages arising out of Hallmark’s illegal and uniform employment
`
`policies.
`
` Hudson knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the
`
`management of this litigation that would preclude its ability to go forward as a class
`
`or collective action.
` Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character,
`
`there is no detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue
`
`does not preclude class or collective action treatment.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATIONS OF THE FLSA
` Hudson incorporates each other allegation.
` Hallmark has violated, and is violating, section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 207, by compensating employees on an hourly basis in an enterprise engaged in
`
`commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the
`
`FLSA for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating the FLSA Collective
`
`members for their employment in excess of 40 hours per week at rates no less than 1.5
`
`times the regular rates for which they were employed.
` Hallmark knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this
`
`illegal pattern and practice of failing to pay the FLSA Collective members overtime
`
`compensation.
` Hallmark’s failure to pay overtime compensation to these FLSA
`
`Collective members was neither reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay overtime
`
`made in good faith.
` Accordingly, Hudson and the FLSA Collective members are entitled to
`
`overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5 times their rate of pay, plus
`
`liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONA WAGE ACT
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the Arizona Wage Act,
`
`ARS 23-350, et seq.
` Hallmark was and is an “employer” within the meaning of the Arizona
`
`Wage Act. (ARS § 23-350(3).)
` At all relevant times, Hallmark employed Hudson and each other
`
`Arizona Overtime member as “employees” within the meaning of the Arizona Wage
`
`Act. (ARS § 23-350(2).)
` Hudson and the other Arizona Overtime Class members were required
`
`by law to be paid overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.
` Hudson and the other Arizona Overtime Class members had a
`
`reasonable expectation Hallmark would pay them wages as required by the FLSA.
` Hudson and the other Arizona Overtime Class members had a
`
`reasonable expectation Hallmark would pay them wages as required by federal law.
` Hudson and the other Arizona Overtime Class members had a
`
`reasonable expectation Hallmark would pay them wages as required by Arizona law.
` Hudson and the other Arizona Overtime Class members had a
`
`reasonable expectation Hallmark would pay them at a rate at least 1.5 times their
`
`regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
` Within the applicable limitations period, Hallmark had a policy and
`
`practice of failing to pay proper overtime to the Arizona Overtime Class members for
`
`their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
` The wages and overtime owed to Hudson and each other Arizona
`
`Overtime member were due to be paid not later than 16 days after the end of the of
`
`the most recent pay period. (ARS § 23-351(C)(3).)
` The wages and overtime owed to Hudson and each other Arizona
`
`Overtime member who left the employment of Hallmark were due to be paid not later
`
`seven days after termination, or at the end of the next regular pay period. (ARS § 23-
`
`353(A)-(B).)
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` The Arizona Wage Act prohibits an employer from withholding or
`
`diverting any portion of an employee’s wages unless they are required or empowered
`
`to do so by state or federal law, or the employee has authorized the withholding in
`
`writing. (ARS § 23-352.)
` Hallmark was not required under Arizona or federal law to withhold the
`
`wages and overtime pay due to Hudson and the Arizona Overtime Class members.
` Hallmark was not empowered under Arizona or federal law to withhold
`
`the wages and overtime pay due to Hudson and the Arizona Overtime Class members.
` Neither Hudson nor the Arizona Overtime Class members authorized
`
`Hallmark to withhold the wages and overtime pay due to them.
` Hallmark has not paid these overtime wages to Hudson and each other
`
`Arizona Overtime member.
` As a result of Hallmark’s failure to pay proper overtime to Hudson and
`
`the Arizona Overtime Class members for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
`
`workweek, Hallmark violated the Arizona Wage Act.
` Hudson and the Arizona Overtime Class members are entitled to
`
`overtime wages under Arizona law in an amount equal to three times their unpaid
`
`wages, plus attorney’s fees and costs. (ARS § 23-355(A).)
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—
`
`FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF ARIZONA SICK LEAVE LAW
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
` The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Law, ARS 23-371, et seq.
` Hallmark was and is an “employer” within the meaning of ARS § 23-
`
`371(G).
`
` At all relevant times, Hallmark employed Hudson and each other
`
`Arizona Sick Leave Class member as “employees” within the meaning of ARS § 23-
`
`362. (ARS § 23-371(E)-(F).)
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
` Hallmark was required to provide written notice of the Arizona Sick
`
`Leave Law to all employess, including Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class
`
`members, at the commencement of employment or by July 1, 2017, whichever was
`
`later.
`
` The notice required by the Arizona Sick Leave Law is prescribed by ARS
`
`§ 23-375(A).
` The notice required by the Arizona Sick Leave Law must be in both
`
`English and Spanish. ARS § 23-375(B).
` Hallmark did not provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave law in the
`
`required form to Kapzinsky or the Arizona Sick Leave Class members.
` Hallmark did not provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave law within
`
`the required time to Kapzinsky or the Arizona Sick Leave Class members.
` Hallmark did not provide notice of the Arizona Sick Leave law in the
`
`required languages to Kapzinsky or the Arizona Sick Leave Class members.
` Hallmark knew of the requirements of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark willfully carried out this illegal pattern and practice of failing
`
`to provide its employees with notice of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Each one of Hallmark’s failures to provide the notices required by the
`
`Arizona Sick Leave Law were willful.
` Accordingly, Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are
`
`entitled to civil penalties for each violation of ARS § 23-375(A)-C), for Hudson and
`
`each Arizona Sick Leave Class member. (ARS §§ 23-364(F), 375.)
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION—
`
`FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS UNDER ARIZONA SICK LEAVE LAW
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
` Hallmark was required to provide, with each regular paycheck, the
`
`amount of earned paid sick time available to each employee, the amount of earned
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`paid sick time taken by the employee to day in the year, and the amount of pay the
`
`employee has received as earned paid sick time. (ARS § 23-375(C).)
` Hallmark did not provide notice as required by ARS § 23-375(C) to
`
`Kapzinsky or the Arizona Sick Leave Class members with each regular paycheck.
` Hallmark did not provide any notice as required by ARS § 23-375(C) to
`
`Kapzinsky or the Arizona Sick Leave Class members.
` Hallmark knew of the requirements of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark willfully carried out this illegal pattern and practice of failing
`
`to provide its employees with notice as required by ARS § 23-375(C).
` Each one of Hallmark’s failures to provide the notices required by the
`
`Arizona Sick Leave Law were willful.
` Accordingly, Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are
`
`entitled to civil penalties for each violation of ARS § 23-375(A)-C), for Hudson and
`
`each Arizona Sick Leave Class member. (ARS §§ 23-364(F), 375.)
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION—
`
`INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS UNDER ARIZONA SICK LEAVE LAW
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
` At all relevant times, Hallmark employed and employs 15 or more
`
`employees.
` Hallmark’s employees, including Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Class members, were all entitled to accrue earned paid sick time, as defined by ARS
`
`§ 23-371(D).
` Under the Arizona Sick Leave Act, Hallmark’s employees not exempt
`
`under the FLSA were entitled to accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick
`
`time for every 30 hours worked. (ARS § 23-372(A).)
` Under the Arizona Sick Leave Act, Hallmark’s employees exempt under
`
`the FLSA were entitled to accrue overtime at the rates set forth by ARS § 23-
`
`372(D)(3).)
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
` It is unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the
`
`exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Law.
`
` Hallmark’s knew the requirements of the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Through its acts and omissions, Hallmark willfully interfered with,
`
`restrained, and denied the rights of Kapzynsky and the Arizona Sick Leave Class
`
`members to earn and exercise their rights to earned paid sick time.
` Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to the
`
`balance of their earned paid sick time owed, interest, and an amount equal to two
`
`times their earned paid sick time owed, plus attorney’s fees and costs, along with any
`
`penalties deemed appropriate. (ARS § 23-364(F)-(G).)
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION—
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UNDER ARIZONA SICK LEAVE LAW
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
` Hudson requests her and the Arizona Sick Pay Class’s rights be
`
`established by a court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory
`
`Judgments Act § 12-1831, et seq.
` Hallmark’s acts and omissions violate the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
` Hallmark’s acts and omissions establish a pattern and practice of
`
`knowing, willful, and reckless disregard of the requirements of the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Law.
`
` The Arizona Sick Leave Law provides for special monitoring and
`
`inspections of any employer who violates the recordkeeping, posting, or other
`
`requirements of the Arizona Sick Leave Law as established by the Industrial
`
`Commission of Arizona. (ARS §§ 23-364(F), 375.)
` Without special monitoring and inspections, Hallmark will continue to
`
`violate the Arizona Sick Leave Law.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
` Special monitoring and inspections under the Arizona Sick Leave Law
`
`may be ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. (ARS §§ 23-364(F), 375.)
` Hudson seeks a declaration that:
`a.
`
`Hallmark’s acts and omissions violated the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Law;
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`earned paid sick leave under the Arizona Sick Leave Law;
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`recover for earned but unpaid sick leave under the Arizona Sick
`
`Leave Law;
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`recover an additional amount equal to twice their earned but
`
`unpaid sick leave under the Arizona Sick Leave Law;
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`interest on their earned but unpaid sick leave under the Arizona
`
`Sick Leave Law;
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`penalties for their earned by unpaid sick leave under the Arizona
`
`Sick Leave Law, as set forth in ARS § 23-364(F);
`
`Hallmark’s acts and omissions violating the Arizona Sick Leave
`
`Law were willful;
`
`Special monitoring and inspections of Hallmark are appropriate
`
`to ensure Hallmark’s compliance with the Arizona Sick Leave Act;
`
`and
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members are entitled to
`
`recover their attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing and maintaining
`
`this action; and
`
`Any other relief which the Court deems proper.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Pl’s Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02230-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/30/21 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION—UNJUST ENRICHMENT
` Hudson incorporates all other allegations.
` Hallmark’s acts and omissions in denying proper overtime pay to Hudson
`
`and the Arizona Overtime Class members was done knowingly, willfully, or with
`
`reckless disregarding of the rights of Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class
`
`members.
`
` Hallmark’s acts and omissions in denying sick leave pay to Hudson and
`
`the Arizona Sick Leave Class members was done knowingly, willfully, or with reckless
`
`disregarding of the rights of Hudson and the Arizona Sick Leave Class members.
` As a result of its unlawful acts and omissions, Hallmark received
`
`substantial benefit in the form of financial compensation that rightfully belonged to
`
`Hudson and the Arizona Class Members.
` It would be unjust to allow Hallmark to retain these benefits, wh