Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`SALVATORE GALLO
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`CIGNA CORPORATION
`
`Defendant
`
`:
`
`'
`
`:
`
`:
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`JUNE 2, 2021
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`COLLAR“.
`
`Employers are liable to their employees for overtime at a rate of one and one-half times
`
`their regular rate when they work more than forty (40) hours in a work week. Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”)1; Connecticut Wage Act, Conn. Gen.
`
`Stat. §§ 31-68, et seq.
`
`(“CWA”).
`
`Employers cannot escape legal liability for wages due to their employees under state and
`
`federal wage laws simply by hiring workers through layers of other companies,
`
`sometimes called “temp agencies” or “staffing agencies” when in fact those entities are
`
`not the true employers.
`
`Here, Defendant Cigna Corporation used PRO Unlimited, Inc. and Apex Systems, Inc. to
`
`try to distance itself from liability for overtime wages while simultaneously taking
`
`advantage of Gallo’s overtime work. Cigna required Plaintiff Salvatore Gallo to work
`
`more than forty (40) hours per week but instructed him not to record more than forty (40)
`
`hours per work week on his time sheets. As a result, Apex only paid Gallo for forty
`
`hours per week when in fact he worked far more.
`
` l
`
`Greenawalt v. AT & TMobi/ity LLC, 642 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Zheng v. Liberty/lpparel
`C0., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2003).
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Cigna is in fact Gallo’s employer and intentionally deprived him of thousands
`
`of dollars in wages and overtime pay. As a result, Cigna is liable to Plaintiff for back
`
`pay, liquidated damages, penalty damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
`
`11.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Salvatore Gallo (“Plaintiff’ or “Gallo”) is an individual residing in Wethersfield,
`
`Connecticut. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Gallo was an employee of
`
`Defendant, as that term is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the
`
`Connecticut Wage Act (“CWA”).
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Cigna Corporation (“Cigna”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business located in Bloomfield, Connecticut.
`
`111.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`This Court hasjurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs CWA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`
`since they are so related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case or
`
`controversy.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts or omissions
`
`giving rise to the claims in this complaint took place in this district.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`10.
`
`Employers are liable to their employees for overtime at a rate of one and one-half times
`
`their regular rate when they work more than forty (40) hours in a work week. Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) 2; Connecticut Wage Act, Conn. Gen.
`
`Stat. §§ 31-68, 31-71a, 31-72, et seq. (“CWA”).
`
` 2
`
`Greenawa/t v. AT & ijlobility LLC, 642 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Zheng v. Liberty Apparel
`C0., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2003)).
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`The applicable definition of ‘employer’ under the FLSA states: ““Employer” includes
`
`any person3 acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an
`
`employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`The applicable definition of ‘employer’ under the CWA states: ““Employer” means any
`
`owner or any person or,
`
`corporation,
`
`acting directly as, or on behalf of, or in the
`
`interest of an employer in relation to employees. .
`
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-58(d).
`
`Employers cannot avoid legal liability for wages due to their employees by hiring them
`
`through layers of other companies which have “no substantial, independent economic
`
`purpose” but are instead “most likely a subterfuge meant to evade the FLSA or other
`
`labor laws.” Zheng v. Liberty Apparel, 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003).
`
`14.
`
`Employers who hire employees through temp agencies are still legally liable as
`
`employers if the work is done on their premises, if the work is done using their
`
`equipment, if the work is integral to the employer’s operations, if the work would remain
`
`the same regardless of which agency referred the worker, and if the employer effectively
`
`controlled on-site terms and conditions of employment. Barfield v. New York City Health
`
`andHospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2008).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Cigna Corporation (“Cigna”) is a corporation headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
`
`and is a company engaged in the provision of healthcare insurance services.
`
`Cigna utilizes and provides information technology (“IT”) services as an integral part of
`
`the delivery of healthcare insurance technology services to their policyholders; it employs
`
`hundreds of IT professionals in various positions as part of their delivery of healthcare
`
`
`
`The FLSA defines “person” to include corporations. 29 U.S.C. § 203(3).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`insurance technology services to their customers, including but not limited to database
`
`administrators, server administrators, programmers, application support personnel, call
`
`center support, and account administrators.
`
`17.
`
`Cigna states on its website under “contract opportunities” that “all contract hiring is
`
`handled by Pro Unlimited, a managed services provider for Cigna. By clicking on the
`
`hyperlink above, you will be leaving the Ci gna careers website and entering a site that is
`
`independently run by PRO Unlimited.”4 Cigna’s website therein provides a hyperlink to
`
`the website of PRO Unlimited.
`
`18.
`
`The PRO Unlimited website contains the Cigna emblem and states, “Contractor Positions
`
`at Cigna”; as of June 1, 2021, Pro Unlimited posted 28 open jobs at Cigna, including but
`
`not limited to IT positions such as “Software Engineering Advisor” and “Systems
`
`Analysis Advisor” at its Bloomfield, CT headquarters.5
`
`19.
`
`PRO Unlimited, Inc. (“PRO Unlimited”) is headquartered in San Francisco, California,
`
`and is a company engaged in the business of contingent (temporary) workforce
`
`management; it also hires contract employees to perform services on a temporary basis to
`
`third party businesses, including but not limited to contract employees that perform
`
`information technology (“IT”) functions.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`PRO Unlimited markets to companies claiming that it can help reduce the risks
`
`associated with “contractor misclassification or co-employment.”6
`
`In or about February of 2019, Gallo learned of a position of data center infrastructure
`
`specialist and submitted a resume and application to Apex Systems, Inc.
`
`4 5
`
`Imps://jobs.cigmaceiii/tis/en/contlact-opmnunjties (last accessed 6/1/21).
`Impsz/fdimelsourcepro-cgn,grounlimilcdcoIii/{careers'é’pi =l37446326638&domain=direclsouicepro—
`cignacom (last accessed 6/1/21).
`6
`
`lille://\~.-'ww. rounlimilcdcom/ ro—lth-com liemcc.
`ll
`
`(last accessed 6/1/21).
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25,
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`On or about March 19, 2019, Gallo signed a contract presented to him by Apex Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Apex”), a temp agency for IT professionals, to work as a “Contract Employee” for
`
`“ProUnlimited at Cigna” in the position of “Technical Support Specialist.”
`
`Gallo agreed under this contract to work in return for a promise to be paid “$31.82 per
`
`hour for all hours worked and verified by Client representative [ProUnlimited at Cigna]
`
`in a workweek[.]”
`
`On or about March 19, 2019, Tim Stino, one of the managers of Apex, arranged an
`
`interview between Plaintiff Gallo and Eugene Deroode, who holds the position of
`
`Architecture Senior Manager at Ci gna.
`
`Mr. Stino explained to Mr. Gallo that Mr. Deroode would be deciding whether Gallo
`
`would be hired to work at the Cigna facility.
`
`Mr. Deroode approved of the hire of Mr. Gallo in or about March of 2019; Gallo
`
`thereafter began working at the Cigna headquarters.
`
`Mr. Gallo performed a discrete job integral to Ci gna’s business; the position description
`
`stated in part:
`
`Responsible for the continuous operation and performance of Cigna's Data
`Centers, day—to-day support of server, network and storage components.
`This support includes chassis, module and power supply replacement during
`incidents, project engagements, RMA returns and maintenance activities.
`This position will
`ensure high quality service delivery through
`responsiveness
`to
`network,
`server
`and
`storage
`problems,
`crisis
`management, and adherence to service levels and network improvement
`initiatives. A person in this role is expected to respond to high impact issues
`on a 24x7 basis, participating in a rotating on call schedule with other team
`members, with work hour norms based on second or third shift.
`
`28.
`
`Mr. Deroode required that Mr. Gallo report to Steven Danko, who was another Ci gna
`
`employee, who supervised the team of five to six (5-6) IT professionals in the
`
`infrastructure department which included Mr. Gallo.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Mr. Danko and Mr. Deroode (both Cigna) trained Mr. Gallo, set Mr. Gallo’s schedule,
`
`provided him with his daily assignments, and closely supervised Mr. Gallo’s work,
`
`constantly following up with Mr. Gallo.
`
`Every day, for security reasons, Mr. Gallo was required to use a card to swipe into the
`
`Cigna facility, and he was again required to use the same card to swipe out of the facility
`
`when he left every day, creating a record of when he entered and left the building.
`
`Ci gna also provided Mr. Gallo a laptop which he was required to use when performing
`
`his work for Cigna, and had to perform the work on Cigna’s premises.
`
`Within the first week, Mr. Deroode informed Mr. Gallo that he must electronically
`
`submit a weekly tally of his hours to both Apex and Cigna which had to match.
`
`Mr. Deroode informed Mr. Gallo that he was to put no more than forty (40) hours on the
`
`time submissions for each week, even if he worked in excess of forty (40) hours, stating,
`
`“you can never put more than 40 hours on your time sheet, I don’t care how many hours
`
`you work.”
`
`As Mr. Gallo continued working for Cigna, the assigned work was far more than forty
`
`(40) hours per week, and sometimes as much as one hundred (100) hours per week.
`
`Mr. Gallo reported the excessive hours to Mr. Deroode, explaining that he was losing out
`
`on a substantial amount of money by not reporting all his hours.
`
`Mr. Deroode told Mr. Gallo that if he did not continue to follow his directives regarding
`
`the underreporting of hours, that he would fire Mr. Gallo, and replace him with another
`
`temporary employee, stating, “If you can’t do it, we’ll find someone who will.”
`
`Mr. Deroode (Cigna) had the ability to fire Mr. Gallo.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`38.
`
`Mr. Gallo worked exclusively for Cigna under their direction, per the contract with Pro
`
`Unlimited, and did not perform work for any other businesses at that time.
`
`VI.
`
`COUNT ONE — VIOLATION OF FLSA VS. CIGNA CORPORATION
`
`39.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Defendant Cigna’s conduct in this regard was a violation of the
`
`FLSA, in that Defendant knew or should have known that Gallo was working more than
`
`40 hours per week but not being paid overtime.
`
`40.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for back overtime compensation at one—and-
`
`one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per week,
`
`liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), et
`
`seq.
`
`VII. COUNT TWO — VIOLATION OF CWA VS. CIGNA CORPORATION
`
`41.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Defendant Cigna’s conduct in this regard was a violation of the
`
`Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, in that Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`Gallo was working more than 40 hours per week but not being paid overtime under Conn.
`
`Gen. Stat. § 31-68, et seq.
`
`42.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for back overtime compensation at one—and-
`
`one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per week,
`
`penalty damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-68, et
`
`seq.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00760-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`VIII. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims:
`
`Unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA;
`
`Unpaid overtime wages under the CWA;
`
`Liquidated damages under the FLSA;
`
`Penalty damages under CWA;
`
`Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law;
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit under the FLSA and CWA, including expert fees; and
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`X.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintif
`
`
`
`
`
`
`;Richard E.
`
`er (ct11629)
`
`Hayber,
`enna & Dinsmore, LLC
`750 M ' Street, Suite 904
`
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel: (860) 522-8888
`Fax: (860) 218-9555
`
`rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`