`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`FORT PIERCE DIVISION
`
`
`KATHLEEN SHORT,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: _________________________
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, Kathleen Short, (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, on behalf
`
`of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this Complaint against Defendant,
`
`Uber Technologies, Inc., (“Defendant” or “Uber”), and in support of her claims states as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This Complaint is filed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and as a
`
`class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), and is brought by and on behalf of
`
`persons who are or have been at some time employed during the applicable limitations period as
`
`drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`California, in the business of providing taxi or transportation services to the general public.
`
`2.
`
`This is a collective action and a class action which challenges Uber’s uniform
`
`policy of willfully misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors when, in fact, each such
`
`driver is and/or was an employee of Uber.
`
`3.
`
`As a result of Uber’s unlawful misclassification of its drivers as independent
`
`contractors, Uber has uniformly violated the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 2 of 16
`
`amended (“FLSA,” 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA” Fla.
`
`Stat. § 44.) by failing to pay its Drivers at least the minimum wage required by Federal and Florida
`
`law for every hour worked.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is a resident of Brevard County, Florida. Between March 2018 and May
`
`2020, Plaintiff worked for Uber as a driver in Sebastian, Florida.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Uber is a corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware,
`
`which is licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida, and which does conduct substantial
`
`business on a regular and continuous basis in Florida. Uber’s principal place of business is in San
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff resides in Micco, Florida, worked for Defendant in St.
`
`Sebastian, Florida, and her claims arose, in substantial part, in Sebastian, Florida. Defendant
`
`regularly conducts business in Sebastian, Florida and is thus subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`district.
`
`ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS PRACTICES
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Uber is a transportation or taxi business. Through a mobile phone
`
`software application, Uber connects local travelers who seek transportation via automobile with
`
`local drivers, like Plaintiff, who have been screened, trained, controlled, and are paid by Uber.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 3 of 16
`
`9.
`
`All Uber drivers must abide by all of Uber’s uniform rules, regulations, and
`
`policies.
`
`10.
`
`Uber operates much like a taxi cab service. Customers who wish to pay for local
`
`transportation via automobile log on to a mobile phone application and enter information
`
`regarding, among other things, where they wish to be picked up and where they wish to be dropped
`
`off. Then, through its software application, Uber sends each customer’s information to a local
`
`Uber driver.
`
`11.
`
`The Uber driver, with easily identifiable decals provided by Uber which, pursuant
`
`to Uber’s uniform rules, must be affixed to the front and back windows of every driver’s vehicle,
`
`then picks up the customer and transports the customer to the desired destination.
`
`12.
`
`Each Uber customer pays for the service by paying Uber directly via credit card
`
`based on an amount calculated solely by Uber and based on the miles driven and the amount of
`
`time it took to reach the destination, plus any gratuity which the customer wishes to give to the
`
`driver.
`
`13.
`
`All payments from the customer, including gratuities, must be paid by the customer
`
`directly to Uber. Uber rules do not permit its drivers to accept any type of payment from its
`
`customers. Instead, Uber pays each of its drivers a portion of the amount received from the
`
`customer (i.e., a portion of the charge for the service and a portion of any gratuity), as determined
`
`solely by Uber.
`
`14.
`
`In an effort to avoid providing its drivers with the minimum benefits and protections
`
`afforded employees under the FLSA and Florida law, Uber has willfully, uniformly, and
`
`unilaterally classified each and every one of its drivers as independent contractors, rather than
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 4 of 16
`
`employees, despite the fact that the factual circumstances of the relationship between Uber and its
`
`drivers clearly demonstrate that Uber drivers are in fact employees of the company.
`
`15.
`
`Under the FLSA and Florida law, Uber drivers should be considered employees
`
`for, among others, the following reasons:
`
`a. Uber retains the right to control, and in fact does control, the manner and means by
`
`which all Uber drivers accomplish their work;
`
`b. Uber retains the right to hire and fire drivers in its sole discretion;
`
`c. Uber retains the right to terminate the Uber “Platform” and the Uber application, or to
`
`block drivers from using the Platform and/or application, which effectively gives Uber
`
`the ability to prevent its drivers from picking up Riders, working, and earning an
`
`income;
`
`d. Uber takes a 20% “administration fee” from each driver’s gratuities left by the customer
`
`for the driver;
`
`e. Drivers do not engage in business distinct from that of Uber;
`
`f. Uber requires that each driver place a large pink mustache on the front of their car while
`
`transporting a Rider to identify the driver’s car as a Uber vehicle;
`
`g. Uber sets all rates of pay for its drivers and prohibits its drivers from setting rates of
`
`pay for their services;
`
`h. Uber requires its drivers to consent to receiving emails and text messages from Uber,
`
`all of which the drivers are required to pay for receiving at the rate charged by their
`
`mobile phone service providers, including without limitation, notification emails,
`
`emails or text messages informing drivers about potential available Riders, and emails
`
`or text messages regarding Uber promotions which drivers are required to abide by;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 5 of 16
`
`i. Uber unilaterally and in its sole discretion requires each driver to accept any and all
`
`discount promotion offers to customers;
`
`j. Uber requires each driver to engage in a two hour training session before being
`
`permitted to work as a Uber driver, including the viewing of training videos, which,
`
`inter alia, instructs drivers regarding Uber’s requirements for how they are to interact
`
`with Riders;
`
`k. Uber requires that each driver ensure that his or her vehicle comply with Uber’s
`
`requirements for appearance and cleanliness;
`
`l. Uber retains the right to discipline its drivers in its sole discretion;
`
`m. Uber limits the geographical locations in which its drivers are permitted to work, and
`
`restricts its drivers’ ability to transport customers more than 60 miles;
`
`n. Uber advertises that its drivers receive an hourly rate of pay;
`
`o. Uber restricts its drivers ability to work and earn income by only permitting them to
`
`work certain hours each day;
`
`p. Uber prohibits its drivers from hiring other employees to assist them; and,
`
`q. Uber requires its drivers to respond to and accept all customer ride requests unless they
`
`are transporting another customer at the time.
`
`16.
`
`As a result of Uber’s uniform misclassification of its drivers as independent
`
`contractors, Uber does not pay its drivers a minimum wage for each hour, or portion thereof, that
`
`they work. Instead, Uber pays its drivers using a formula, derived and determined solely by Uber,
`
`based on and related in some way to the amount Uber receives from its customers. The
`
`consequences of this practice are, without limitation, that Uber drivers: (1) are not paid for all of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 6 of 16
`
`the hours that they actually work; and (2) are not paid at least the minimum wage required by
`
`Federal law for each hour worked.
`
`17.
`
`Further, Defendant denied riders the ability to see what riders paid in total and how
`
`the compensation for the ride was determined. Compensation is determined, and was visible, solely
`
`by Uber.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other persons
`
`similarly situated (the “Class”), namely drivers who, at any time during the period from June 18,
`
`2012, to the present (the “Class Period”), have worked, or currently work, as a driver for Uber.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff is and has been a member of the proposed Class described herein.
`
`The number of persons in the proposed Class herein is so numerous that joinder of
`
`all such persons would be impracticable. While the exact number and identities of all such persons
`
`are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be obtained through appropriate discovery,
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the proposed Class herein includes
`
`over 1,000 persons.
`
`21.
`
`Disposition of Plaintiff’s claims in a collective action will benefit all parties and
`
`the Court.
`
`22.
`
`There is a well-defined community of interest presented by the proposed Class
`
`herein in that, among other things, each member of the proposed Class has an interest in receiving
`
`the minimum compensation required by the FLSA for the hours they have worked for Defendant,
`
`obtaining other appropriate legal relief for the harm of which Plaintiff complains, and obtaining
`
`other adequate compensation for the common damages which Plaintiff and all other persons
`
`similarly situated have suffered as a result of Defendant’s actions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 7 of 16
`
`23.
`
`Each Class Member herein has performed labor for Defendant at Defendant’s
`
`request at some time during the Class Period for which they have not been properly compensated,
`
`in that they have not received the minimum compensation required by the FLSA.
`
`24.
`
`A collective action in this case is superior to any other available method for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the claims presented herein.
`
`25.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed Class
`
`herein would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to individual
`
`members of the proposed Class which would or may establish incompatible standards of conduct
`
`for Defendant and which would also create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual
`
`members of the proposed Class herein which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the
`
`interests of other members of the proposed Class not parties to the particular individual
`
`adjudications, and/or would or may substantially impede or impair the ability of those other
`
`members to protect their interests.
`
`26.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist in this case with respect to the proposed
`
`Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and
`
`which do not vary between members thereof.
`
`27.
`
`At some time during the Class Period, all of the individuals in the proposed Class
`
`herein have been employed by Defendant as drivers and have been unlawfully subjected to a
`
`uniform and consistent set of employment practices, as described more fully herein.
`
`28.
`
`All members of the proposed Class herein have worked hours during the Class
`
`Period, but have been deprived of their legal rights, guaranteed by the FLSA, to be paid a minimum
`
`wage for such hours.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 8 of 16
`
`29.
`
`The common questions of fact involved in this case include, without limitation,
`
`whether each member of the proposed Class herein have worked hours during the Class Period for
`
`which they have not been paid at least the minimum wage required by Federal law.
`
`30.
`
`The common questions of law involved in this case include, without limitation: (1)
`
`whether Class Members performed labor for Defendant as employees or as independent
`
`contractors; (2) whether Defendant has violated the FLSA by failing to pay its driver employees
`
`at least the legally required minimum wage for each and every hour worked; and, (3) whether
`
`Plaintiff and those other persons similarly situated are entitled to general and/or special damages
`
`as a result of any of the legal violations complained of herein, and the nature of such damages.
`
`31.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiff in this case are typical of those of the other Class
`
`Members which she seeks to represent, in that, among other things, Plaintiff and each other Class
`
`Member have sustained damages and are facing irreparable harm because of, and arising out of, a
`
`common course of conduct engaged in by Defendant as complained of herein.
`
`32.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiff herein are coincident with, and not antagonistic
`
`to, the claims of other Class Members which the named Plaintiff seeks to represent.
`
`33.
`
`The named Plaintiff herein will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
`
`interests of the members of the proposed Class which she seeks to represent. Plaintiff does not
`
`have any interests which are antagonistic to the interests of the proposed Class herein.
`
`34.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff herein are experienced, qualified and generally able to conduct
`
`complex collective action legislation.
`
`35.
`
`By virtue of Defendant’s unlawful failure to pay Class Members the minimum
`
`compensation required by Federal law, Defendant has received substantial sums of money, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 9 of 16
`
`has realized profits from the unpaid labor of literally thousands of employees during the applicable
`
`limitations period.
`
`36.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the FLSA was, and continue to be, in full force and
`
`effect, and the Defendant herein was, and continues to be, bound thereby.
`
`37.
`
`The relief sought in this action is necessary to restore to members of the proposed
`
`Class the money and property which Defendant has illegally acquired through the unlawful
`
`treatment of each Class Member as described herein.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
` Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation of FLSA
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein,
`
`38.
`
`paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint
`
`39.
`
`Defendant is the employer of Plaintiff.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant willfully and uniformly misclassified Plaintiff and the class of Drivers
`
`as an independent contractor when in fact she was and/or is an employee of UBER.
`
`41.
`
`The FLSA provides that any employee who receives less than the legal minimum
`
`wage applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the difference between what
`
`the employee was paid and the amount the employee should have been paid, known as back pay,
`
`and an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs.
`
`42.
`
`The FLSA provides that the applicable minimum wage that an employee is entitled
`
`to is the higher of the Federal minimum wage and the applicable State minimum wage.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the class of Drivers at least the legally
`
`required minimum wage for some portion of the hours that each such person worked as a driver
`
`for UBER during the preceding three years.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 10 of 16
`
`44.
`
`Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and the class of Drivers at least the minimum
`
`wages, as required by law, violates the provisions of the FLSA.
`
`45.
`
`By virtue of Defendant’s unlawful failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and
`
`the class of Drivers, they have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are
`
`presently unknown to Plaintiff but which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.
`
`46.
`
`Pursuant to the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Class of Drivers are entitled to recover from
`
`Defendant the full balance of any and all unpaid minimum wages, plus attorney’s fees and court
`
`costs.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who join this collective
`
`action demand as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
`
`prospective Class that she seeks to represent;
`
`B.
`
`Prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) to all similarly situated
`
`members of the Class, apprising them of the pendency of this action and permitting
`
`them to assert timely claims in this action by filing individual consent to sue forms
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
`
`C.
`
`Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations from the date of the filing of this
`
`Complaint until the expiration of the deadline for filing consent to sue forms under
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
`
`D.
`
`Leave to add additional Plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or
`
`any other method approved by this Court.
`
`E.
`
`Judgment against Defendant for an amount equal to Plaintiff’s and the Class’
`
`unpaid back wages at the applicable statutory minimum wage;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 11 of 16
`
`F.
`
`Judgment against Defendant stating that Defendant’s violations of the FLSA were
`
`willful;
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`An amount equal to the Plaintiff’s minimum wage damages as liquidated damages;
`
`To the extent that liquidated damages are not awarded, an award of prejudgment
`
`interest;
`
`I.
`
`A declaration that Defendant’s practices as to Plaintiff and the Class were unlawful,
`
`and grant Plaintiff and the Class equitable relief;
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`All costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and,
`
`For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff asserts her Rule 23 class claims on behalf of a Putative Class defined as
`
`follows:
`
`All persons employed by UBER as drivers in Florida within four years of the filing of
`this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff is and has been a member of the Putative Class described herein.
`
`The number of persons in the Putative Class herein is so numerous that joinder of
`
`all such persons would be impracticable. While the exact number and identities of all such persons
`
`are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be obtained through appropriate discovery,
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Putative Class herein includes
`
`over 1,000 persons.
`
`50.
`
`Disposition of Plaintiff’s claims in a class action will benefit all parties and the
`
`Court.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 12 of 16
`
`51.
`
`There is a well-defined community of interest presented by the Putative Class
`
`herein in that, among other things, each member of the Putative Class has an interest in being
`
`classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor, obtaining other appropriate legal
`
`relief for the harm of which Plaintiff complains, and obtaining other adequate compensation for
`
`the common damages which Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated have suffered as a
`
`result of Defendant’s actions.
`
`52.
`
`Each Class Member herein has performed labor for Defendant at Defendant’s
`
`request at some time during the Class Period, while the Class was unlawfully misclassified as
`
`independent contractors.
`
`53.
`
`A class action in this case is superior to any other available method for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of the claims presented herein.
`
`54.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Putative Class
`
`herein would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to individual
`
`members of the Putative Class which would or may establish incompatible standards of conduct
`
`for Defendant and which would also create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual
`
`members of the Putative Class herein which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the
`
`interests of other members of the Putative Class not parties to the particular individual
`
`adjudications, and/or would or may substantially impede or impair the ability of those other
`
`members to protect their interests.
`
`55.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist in this case with respect to the Putative
`
`Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and
`
`which do not vary between members thereof.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 13 of 16
`
`56.
`
`At some time during the Class Period, all of the individuals in the Putative Class
`
`herein have been employed by Defendant as drivers and have been unlawfully subjected to a
`
`uniform and consistent set of compensation, as described more fully herein.
`
`57.
`
`The common questions of fact involved in this case include, without limitation,
`
`whether each member of the proposed Class herein have worked hours during the Class Period for
`
`which they have not been paid at least the minimum wage required by Florida law.
`
`58.
`
`The common questions of law involved in this case include, without limitation: (1)
`
`whether Class Members performed labor for Defendant as employees or as independent
`
`contractors; (2) whether Defendant has violated Section 24, Article X of the Florida Constitution
`
`as well as Florida Statute § 448.110 by failing to pay its driver employees at least the legally
`
`required minimum wage for each and every hour worked; and, (3) whether Plaintiff and those
`
`other persons similarly situated are entitled to general and/or special damages as a result of any of
`
`the legal violations complained of herein, and the nature of such damages.
`
`59.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiff in this case are typical of those of the other Class
`
`Members which she seeks to represent, in that, among other things, Plaintiff and each other Class
`
`Member have sustained damages and are facing irreparable harm because of, and arising out of, a
`
`common course of conduct engaged in by Defendant as complained of herein.
`
`60.
`
`The claims of the named Plaintiff herein are coincident with, and not antagonistic
`
`to, the claims of other Class Members which the named Plaintiff seeks to represent.
`
`61.
`
`The named Plaintiff herein will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
`
`interests of the members of the Putative Class which she seeks to represent. Plaintiff does not have
`
`any interests which are antagonistic to the interests of the Putative Class herein.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 14 of 16
`
`62.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff herein are experienced, qualified and generally able to conduct
`
`complex class action legislation.
`
`63.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Section 24, Article X of the Florida Constitution as
`
`well as Florida Statute § 448.110 were, and continue to be, in full force and effect, and the
`
`Defendant herein was, and continues to be, bound thereby.
`
`64.
`
`The relief sought in this action is necessary to restore to members of the Putative
`
`Class the money and property which Defendant has illegally acquired through the unlawful
`
`treatment of each Class Member as described herein.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the Putative Class to the extent
`
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The names and addresses of the Putative Class members are
`
`available from Defendant’s records.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (AS TO CLASS ACTION)
`
`Violations of Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA)
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein,
`
`paragraphs 1-17 and 47-65 of this Complaint.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class of Drivers has exhausted all of her administrative and pre-
`
`suit requirements under Fla. Stat. § 448.110. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Class of Drivers have
`
`notified Defendants of the deficiency in her wages in writing. In this written notice, Plaintiff
`
`identified the applicable State minimum wage at issue, provided actual dates and hours or accurate
`
`estimates of all of the periods for which minimum wage payment is sought, and listed the total
`
`amount of her alleged unpaid wages through the date of the notice.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 15 of 16
`
`68.
`
`During the statutory period, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and the Class of
`
`Drivers the applicable Florida minimum wage, as Defendants was required to do under Section
`
`24, Article X of the Florida Constitution as well as the FMWA.
`
`69.
`
`As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who join this collective action
`
`demand as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Designation of this action as a class on behalf of the Plaintiff and the prospective
`
`Class that she seeks to represent;
`
`B.
`
`Judgment against Defendant for an amount equal to Plaintiff’s and the Class’
`
`unpaid back wages at the applicable Florida minimum wage for the class period;
`
`C.
`
`Judgment against Defendant stating that Defendant’s violations of the Section 24,
`
`Article X of the Florida Constitution as well as the FMWA were willful;
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`An amount equal to the Plaintiff’s minimum wage damages as liquidated damages;
`
`To the extent that liquidated damages are not awarded, an award of prejudgment
`
`interest;
`
`F.
`
`A declaration that Defendant’s practices as to Plaintiff and the Class were unlawful,
`
`and grant Plaintiff and the Class equitable relief;
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`All costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and,
`
`For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-14057-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2021 Page 16 of 16
`
`Dated this 3rd day of February, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon J. Hill
`BRANDON J. HILL
`Florida Bar Number: 0037061
`AMANDA E. HEYSTEK
`Florida Bar Number: 0285020
`WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
`1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
`Tampa, Florida 33602
`Main Number: 813-224-0431
`Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
`Facsimile: 813-229-8712
`Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
`Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
`Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`