`FILED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`ISIAH WHITE, Individually and on
`Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
`
`vs.
`
`No. 4:20-cv- 1 Y ;2 -1<€Yt3
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`.,..
`EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS .
`JUN 15 2020
`
`JAMES W. McCOR~, CLERK'.,
`By: ~ 4.cLERK
`PLAINTIFF
`
`~
`
`SKIPPY FOODS, LLC, HORMEL FOODS
`CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATE
`SERVICES, LLC, and HORMEL FOODS SALES, LLC
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT-COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff Isiah White ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of
`
`all others similarly situated, by and through his attorneys Tess Bradford and Josh
`
`Sanford of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, and for his Original Complaint(cid:173)
`
`Collective Action against Skippy Foods, LLC, Hormel Foods Corporation, Hormel
`
`Foods Corporate Services, LLC, and Hormel Foods Sales, LLC ( collectively
`
`"Defendant" or "Defendants"), he does hereby state and allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
`
`("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et
`
`seq.
`
`("AMWA"),
`
`for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
`
`liquidated
`
`damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
`
`as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a
`This case assigned to District Judge &.1fq
`and to Magistrate Judge __ K"'"""""t...,li--.Y\..,_~__,.~--
`
`Page 1 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 14
`
`proper overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly
`
`situated worked.
`
`2.
`
`The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 because this suit raises federal questions under the FLSA.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs claims under the AMWA form part of the same case or
`
`controversy and arise out of the same facts as the FLSA claims alleged in this
`
`Complaint. Therefore, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
`
`AMWA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`4.
`
`Defendant conducts business within
`
`the State of Arkansas,
`
`operating a peanut butter factory in Little Rock.
`
`5.
`
`Venue lies properly within this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)
`
`and (c)(2), because the State of Arkansas has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Defendant, and Defendant therefore "resides" in Arkansas.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its factory located in the
`
`Central Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas.
`
`7.
`
`The acts alleged in this Complaint had their principal effect within
`
`the Central Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas, and venue is proper in
`
`this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is an individual resident and domiciliary of Pulaski County.
`
`Separate Defendant Skippy Foods, LLC ("Skippy"), is a foreign
`
`limited liability company.
`
`Page 2 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 14
`
`10.
`
`Skippy's registered agent for service is C T Corporation System,
`
`124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.
`
`11.
`
`Separate Defendant Hormel Foods Corporation ("HF Corporation"),
`
`is a foreign, for-profit corporation.
`
`12.
`
`HF Corporation's registered agent for service is C T Corporation
`
`System, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.
`
`13.
`
`Separate Defendant Hormel Foods Corporate Services, LLC
`
`("HFCS"), is a foreign limited liability company.
`
`14.
`
`HFCS's registered agent for service is C T Corporation System,
`
`124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.
`
`15.
`
`Separate Defendant Hormel Foods Sales, LLC ("HF Sales"), is a
`
`foreign limited liability company.
`
`16.
`
`HF Sales's registered agent for service is C T Corporation System,
`
`124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
`
`Ill.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully incorporated in this section.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants have unified operational control and management, as
`
`well as control over employees, including shared power to supervise, hire and
`
`fire, establish wages and wage policies and set schedules for their employees
`
`through unified management.
`
`19. Upon information and belief, revenue generated by Skippy, HF
`
`Corp., HFCS and HF Sales was merged and managed in a unified manner.
`
`Page 3 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 14
`
`20.
`
`As a result of this unified operation, control and management,
`
`through shared employees and ownership with the authority to establish wages
`
`and wage policy, Defendants operated as a single enterprise.
`
`21.
`
`During each of the three years preceding the filing of this
`
`Complaint, Defendant employed at least two individuals who were engaged in
`
`interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or
`
`had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that
`
`had been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, such as medical
`
`supplies and pharmaceutical drugs.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant's annual gross volume of sales made or business done
`
`was not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that
`
`are separately stated) during each of the three calendar years preceding the
`
`filing of this complaint.
`
`23.
`
`At all times material herein, Defendant was an "employer'' of
`
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA and the
`
`AMWA.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant owns and operates a peanut butter factory in Little Rock.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Label Operator from
`
`June of 2019 to May of 2020.
`
`26.
`
`At all times material herein, Defendant classified Plaintiff as non-
`
`exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and paid him an hourly
`
`wage.
`
`Page 4 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 14
`
`27.
`
`At all times material herein, Plaintiff has been entitled to the rights,
`
`protections and benefits provided under the FLSA.
`
`28.
`
`In addition to his hourly rate, Plaintiff periodically received bonuses.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant also employed other hourly employees who received
`
`bonuses (hereinafter, "bonusing employees").
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff and other bonusing employees received bonuses if the
`
`factory met certain objective requirements such as meeting safety goals.
`
`31.
`
`These nondiscretionary bonuses were a form of compensation to
`
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.
`
`32.
`
`At all relevant times herein, Defendant directly hired bonusing
`
`employees to work at its factories, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their
`
`work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment
`
`conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff regularly worked over forty (40) hours per week while
`
`employed by Defendant.
`
`34. Other bonusing employees worked over forty (40) hours in at least
`
`some weeks while employed by Defendant.
`
`35.
`
`During weeks in which Plaintiff and other bonusing employees
`
`worked over forty (40) hours, Defendant paid an improper overtime rate because
`
`Defendant determined the regular rate of pay solely based on employees' hourly
`
`rate, without including the value of the nondiscretionary bonuses that Defendant
`
`provided to Plaintiff and other bonusing employees.
`
`Page 5 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 14
`
`36.
`
`Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the CFR requires that all forms of
`
`compensation, such as nondiscretionary bonuses, "must be totaled in with other
`
`earnings to determine the regular rate on which overtime pay must be based."
`
`37.
`
`Therefore, Defendant violated the FLSA by not including all forms
`
`of compensation, such as nondiscretionary bonuses, in the regular rate when
`
`calculating Plaintiff's and other bonusing employees' overtime pay.
`
`38.
`
`At all relevant times herein, Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and
`
`similarly situated employees of proper overtime compensation for all of the hours
`
`worked over forty (40) per week.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its
`
`actions violated the FLSA.
`
`IV.
`
`REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully incorporated in this section.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim on behalf of all other bonusing
`
`employees who received nondiscretionary bonuses and were employed by
`
`Defendant at any time within the applicable statute of limitations period, who
`
`were classified by Defendant as non-exempt from the overtime requirements of
`
`the FLSA, and who are entitled to payment of the following types of damages:
`
`A.
`
`Payment of a lawful overtime premium for all hours worked for
`
`Defendant in excess of forty (40) hours in a week;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Liquidated damages; and
`
`Attorney's fees and costs
`
`Page 6 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 14
`
`4 7.
`
`Plaintiff proposes the following collective under the FLSA:
`
`All hourly-paid employees who earned a bonus in connection
`with work performed in any week in which they worked
`more than forty hours within the past three years.
`
`48.
`
`In conformity with the requirements of FLSA Section 16(b), Plaintiff
`
`has filed or will soon file a written Consent to Join this lawsuit.
`
`49.
`
`The relevant time period dates back three years from the date on
`
`which Plaintiff's Original Complaint-Collective Action was filed herein and
`
`continues forward through the date of judgment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a),
`
`except as set forth herein below.
`
`50.
`
`The proposed FLSA collective members are similarly situated in
`
`that they share these traits:
`
`A.
`
`They were classified by Defendant as non-exempt from
`
`the
`
`overtime requirements of the FLSA;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`They were paid hourly rates;
`
`They were eligible for and received bonuses;
`
`They had the same or substantially similar job duties, requirements
`
`and pay provisions;
`
`E.
`
`They worked over forty (40) hours in at least one week in which
`
`they performed work in connection with a bonus; and
`
`F.
`
`They were subject to Defendant's common policy of improperly
`
`calculating overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) per week.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class but
`
`believes that there are approximately one hundred (100) other employees who
`
`Page 7 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 8 of 14
`
`worked as hourly employees and received an improperly calculated overtime rate
`
`due to nondiscretionary bonuses.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant can readily identify the members of the Section 16(b)
`
`collective which encompasses all hourly employees who received a bonus and
`
`worked more than forty hours in a week.
`
`53.
`
`The names and physical and mailing addresses of the FLSA
`
`collective action plaintiffs are available from Defendant, and a Court-approved
`
`Notice should be provided to the FLSA collective action plaintiffs via first class
`
`mail and email to their last known physical and electronic mailing addresses as
`
`soon as possible, together with other documents and information descriptive of
`
`Plaintiffs FLSA claim.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`V.
`(Individual Claim for Violation of the FLSA)
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth in this section.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff asserts this claim for damages and declaratory relief
`
`pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
`
`56.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 207 requires employers to pay employees one and
`
`one-half (1.5) times the employee's regular rate for all hours that the employee
`
`works in excess of forty (40) per week.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from the overtime
`
`requirements of the FLSA.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant violated 29 U.S.C. § 207 by not paying Plaintiff a proper
`
`overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.
`
`Page 8 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 9 of 14
`
`59.
`
`Defendant violated Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the CFR by not
`
`including all forms of compensation, including nondiscretionary bonuses, for
`
`Plaintiff in her regular rate when calculating her overtime pay.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant's conduct and practice, as described above, has been
`
`and is willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.
`
`61.
`
`By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to
`
`Plaintiff for, and Plaintiff seeks, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
`
`costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by the FLSA.
`
`62.
`
`Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendant acted in good
`
`faith in failing to pay Plaintiff as provided by the FLSA, Plaintiff is entitled to an
`
`award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VI.
`(Collective Action Claim for Violation of the FLSA)
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth in this section.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of himself and all
`
`similarly situated employees who were employed by Defendant and received
`
`nondiscretionary bonuses, to recover monetary damages owed by Defendant to
`
`Plaintiff and members of the putative collective for overtime compensation for all
`
`the hours he and they worked in excess of forty (40) each week.
`
`65.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 207 requires employers to pay employees one and
`
`one-half (1.5) times the employee's regular rate for all hours that the employee
`
`works in excess of forty (40) per week.
`
`Page 9 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 10 of 14
`
`66.
`
`Defendant violated Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the CFR by not
`
`including all forms of compensation, such as nondiscretionary bonuses, given to
`
`Plaintiff and others in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay.
`
`67.
`
`In the past three years, Defendant has employed more than one
`
`hundred (100) hourly employees who were eligible for nondiscretionary bonuses.
`
`68.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, Plaintiff and all or almost all
`
`employees who received nondiscretionary bonuses worked more than 40 hours
`
`in at least one week in which they performed work connected to a bonus.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at
`
`the proper overtime rate.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant's conduct and practice, as described above, has been
`
`and is willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.
`
`71.
`
`By reason of the unlawful acts alleged in this Complaint, Defendant
`
`is liable to Plaintiff and all those similarly situated for, and Plaintiff and all those
`
`similarly situated seek, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs,
`
`including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by the FLSA.
`
`72.
`
`Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendant acted in good
`
`faith in failing to pay Plaintiff and all those similarly situated as provided for by the
`
`FLSA, Plaintiff and all those similarly situated are entitled to an award of
`
`prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`VII.
`(Individual Claim for Violation of the AMWA)
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully incorporated in this section.
`
`Page 10 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 11 of 14
`
`7 4.
`
`Plaintiff asserts these claims for damages and declaratory relief
`
`pursuant to the AMWA, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq.
`
`75.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant was Plaintiff's
`
`"employer" within the meaning of the AMWA, Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-203(4).
`
`76.
`
`AMWA Sections 210 and 211
`
`require employers to pay all
`
`employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to forty and to pay 1.5x
`
`regular wages for all hours worked over 40, unless an employee meets the
`
`exemption requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 213 and accompanying DOL regulations.
`
`77.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant failed to pay
`
`Plaintiff a proper overtime premium as required under the AMWA.
`
`78.
`
`Despite the entitlement of Plaintiff to overtime payments under the
`
`AMWA, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of one and one-half
`
`times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in each week.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages was willful.
`
`80.
`
`By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to
`
`Plaintiff for monetary damages,
`
`liquidated damages, and costs,
`
`including
`
`reasonable attorneys' fees, for all violations that occurred within the 3 years prior
`
`to the filing of this Complaint pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218.
`
`VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Isiah White, individually on
`
`behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully prays as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`That each Defendant be summoned to appear and answer herein;
`
`That Defendant be required to account to Plaintiff, the collective
`
`Page 11 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 12 of 14
`
`members and the Court for all of the hours worked by Plaintiff and the collective
`
`members and all monies paid to them;
`
`C.
`
`A declaratory judgment that Defendant's practices alleged herein
`
`violate the FLSA, the AMWA and the attendant regulations;
`
`D.
`
`Certification of, and proper notice to, together with an opportunity to
`
`participate in the litigation, all qualifying current and former employees;
`
`E.
`
`Judgment for damages for all unpaid back wages owed to Plaintiff
`
`and members of the collective from a period of three (3) years prior to this lawsuit
`
`through the date of trial under the FLSA, the AMWA and the attendant
`
`regulations;
`
`F.
`
`Judgment for liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, the AMWA
`
`and the attendant regulations;
`
`G.
`
`An order directing Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members of the
`
`collective interest, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs connected with this
`
`action; and
`
`H.
`
`Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Page 12 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 13 of 14
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ISIAH WHITE, Individually and
`on Behalf of All Others Similarly
`Situated, PLAINTIFF
`
`SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
`ONE FINANCIAL CENTER
`650 SOUTH SHACKLEFORD, SUITE 411
`LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211
`TELEPHONE: (501) 221-0088
`FACSIMILE: (888) 7 7-2040
`
`Tess Bradford
`Ark. Bar No. 2017156
`tess@sanfordlawfirm.com
`
`Josh s?irJtE
`
`Ark. Bar No. 2001037
`josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
`
`Page 13 of 13
`Isiah White, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, et al.
`U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) Case No. 4:20-cv-_
`Original Complaint-Collective Action
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00742-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 14 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`ISIAH WHITE, Individually and on
`Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`vs.
`
`No. 4:20-cv-- -
`
`SKIPPY FOODS, LLC, HORMEL FOODS
`CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATE
`SERVICES, LLC, and HORMEL FOODS SALES, LLC
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`I was employed as an hourly worker for Skippy Foods, LLC, Hormel Foods
`Corporation, Hormel Foods Corporate Services, LLC, and Hormel Foods Sales, LLC,
`within the past three (3) years. I understand this lawsuit is being brought under the Fair
`Labor Standards Act for miscalculated overtime wages. I consent to becoming a party(cid:173)
`plaintiff in this lawsuit, to be represented by Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, and to be bound
`by any settlement of this action or adjudication by the Court.
`
`ISIAH WHITE
`June 15, 2020
`
`Josh Sanford, Esq.
`SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
`One Financial Center
`650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
`Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
`Telephone: (501) 221-0088
`Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
`josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
`
`