`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`PALM BEACH DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DANIEL BROWDER, Individually and
`on behalf of all others similary situated,
`
`
`vs.
`
`E&S COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Florida Limited Liability
`Company,SAMANTHA R. QUIMBY, an
`invidual, and ELLIJAH D.
`SCHAEFFER, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION PURSUANT TO
`29 U.S.C. 216(b)
`
`
`
`
`/
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, Daniel Browder, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
`
`individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, sue Defendants E&S
`
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, (“E&S”), SAMANTHA R.
`
`QUIMBY (“Quimby”) and ELLIJAH D. SCHAEFFER (“Schaeffer”, along with Quimby and
`
`E&S, the “Defendants”) on a collective basis pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The FLSA is designed to eliminate “labor conditions detrimental to the
`
`maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-
`
`being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). To achieve its purposes, the FLSA requires three things.
`
`First, the FLSA requires payment of minimum wages. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). Second, the FLSA
`
`requires overtime pay for covered employers whose employees work in excess of 40 hours per
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 2 of 15
`
`workweek. 29 U.S.C. 207(a). And third, the FLSA establishes minimum recordkeeping
`
`requirements for covered employers. 29 U.S.C. § 211(a); 29 U.S.C § 516.2(a)(7).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were cell tower install laborers for the
`
`Defendants who were paid on a purported day rate for work performed. Due to Defendants’
`
`company-wide policies and procedures of not paying overtime compensation, Plaintiff, and those
`
`similarly situated were deprived of wages owed.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff, Daniel Browder, now brings this action individually and on behalf of all
`
`other similarly situated current and former non-exempt cell tower laborers who were paid a day
`
`rate and who have been employed by Defendants (“Plaintiffs” or “Putative Class Members”)
`
`throughout the United States, at any time from three years before the filing of this Complaint
`
`through the final disposition of this matter, and have timely filed consent forms to join this
`
`collective action. These class members should be informed of the pendency of this action and
`
`apprised of their rights.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Daniel Browder (“Browder”) worked at E&S in the State of Florida
`
`during the relevant time period. Plaintiff Browder’s written consent to be a party plaintiff in this
`
`action is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`5.
`
`Defendant E&S, Communications, LLC (“E&S”) is a Florida Limited Liability
`
`Company, licensed to and doing business in the State of Florida. E&S may be served with
`
`process by serving its registered agent, Ellijah D. Schaeffer, 13303 61st Street N, West Palm
`
`Beach, FL 33412. Defendant E&S is a covered employer under the FLSA and acted as such in
`
`relation to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`6.
`
`SAMANTHA R. QUIMBY is a citizen and resident of Florida, and can be served
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 3 of 15
`
`with process at the company’s principal place of business at: 13303 61st Street N, West Palm
`
`Beach, FL 33412. Defendant Quimby is a covered employer under the FLSA and acted as such
`
`in relation to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
`
`7.
`
`ELLIJAH D. SCHAEFFER is a citizen and resident of Florida, and was served
`
`with process at the company’s principal place of business at: 13303 61st Street N, West Palm
`
`Beach, FL 33412. Defendant Schaeffer is a covered employer under the FLSA and acted as
`
`such in relation to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
`
`SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claim pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 as this is an action arising under 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et. seq.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Disposal Services
`
`because the cause of action arose within this District as a result of Defendants’ conduct within
`
`this District and because Defendants are headquartered in Florida and organized under Florida
`
`law.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because Plaintiff Browder performed his work for
`
`Defendant within this District.
`
`11.
`
`Specifically, Defendants have maintained a working presence throughout Palm
`
`Beach County, Florida.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`FLSA COVERAGE
`
`At all material times, Defendants have been an employer within the meaning of
`
`13.
`
`section 203(d) of the FLSA, which is defined to include any person acting directly or indirectly
`
`in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 4 of 15
`
`14.
`
`At all material times, Defendants have been an enterprise in commerce or in the
`
`production of goods for commerce within the meaning of section 203(s)(l) of the FLSA because
`
`Defendants had and continue to have employees engaged in commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
`
`15.
`
`At all material times, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, was an employee who
`
`engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by sections 206
`
`and 207 of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206–07.
`
`16.
`
`At all material times, Defendants had and continue to have, an annual gross
`
`business volume in excess of the statutory standard of $500,000.00.
`
`17.
`
`During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants employed at least two employees who
`
`handled goods, materials and supplies used to run the business and provide services to the
`
`community which travelled in interstate commerce, including but not limited to:
`
`a. Vehicles—vehicles owned by the Defendants, which on information and
`belief, were manufactured outside of the state of Florida;
`
`b. Vehicle Components—tires, batteries, parts, hydraulic cylinders, fuel and oil
`etc. used to maintain and service the vehicles, which on information and
`belief, were manufactured outside the state of Florida;
`
`c. Cell Tower Components—monopoles, guy towers, tension wires, guy wires,
`bolt-on and anchor components, specialized antenna mount fabrications,
`waveguide bridge and ladder components, antenna verification and coax
`sweep testing tools and components, as well as all replacement and upgrade
`parts, tools, and other components, which on information and belief, were
`manufactured outside the state of Florida; and
`
`d. Other Products Used in Business—computers, servers, tablets, laptops, and
`software used in the administration and operation of the business, which on
`information and belief were manufactured outside the state of Florida.
`
`18.
`
`Therefore, at all material times relevant to this action, Defendants were an
`
`enterprise covered by the FLSA, and as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s). See
`
`Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Ser., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217, (11th Cir. 2010); Burman v. Everkept,
`
`Inc., 2017 WL 1150664, *6-9 (W.D. Mich. 2017)(citing Polycarpe and finding local waste
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 5 of 15
`
`disposal company was enterprise covered by the FLSA).
`
`
`
`WAGE VIOLATIONS
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly
`
`situated, time and one-half for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
`
`20.
`
`Further, Defendants have improperly calculated Plaintiff’s and the Putative Class
`
`Members’ regular rate resulting in further miscalculation of Plaintiff’s overtime pay.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff and those similarly situated should have received overtime compensation
`
`at a rate not less than one and one-half times their true regular rate.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were paid under a purported day rate plan
`
`whereby they were supposed to be paid for each day worked regardless of the number of hours
`
`worked each day. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.112.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants violated the day rate regulation by failing to pay additional overtime
`
`compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek, instead solely paying the day rate.
`
`23.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA
`
`because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed services for Defendants for which no
`
`provisions were made by Defendants to properly pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated, for all
`
`hours worked or at the correct prevailing rate.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action on behalf of a class of individuals
`
`similarly situated. Specifically, Plaintiff brings these claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`as a collective action and will request the Court to grant conditional certification under 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 216(b), and to order notices to potential opt-in individuals who are or were employed by
`
`Defendants as cell tower laborers within three (3) years prior to the commencement of this
`
`lawsuit (the “FLSA Class”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 6 of 15
`
`25.
`
`Potential opt-in members of the collective action are similarly situated to Plaintiff.
`
`They all held the same job positions and had substantially similar job requirements and pay
`
`provisions. They are or were subject to the same common practices, policies, and plans of
`
`Defendants. They all suffered damages in the nature of lost overtime and other wages resulting
`
`from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Defendants are Joint Employers of Plaintiff and all those similarly situated
`
`26.
`
`“To be ‘employed’ includes when an employer ‘suffer[s] or permit[s] [the
`
`employee] to work.’” Id. at 942 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(g)). “To determine if an individual is an
`
`employee, ‘we look at the economic reality of all the circumstances’ surrounding the activity.”
`
`Id. (citing Brouwer, 139 F.3d at 819). “We refer to this test as the ‘economic reality’ test.” Id.
`
`(citing Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202, 205 (11th Cir.1997)). “The touchstone of the
`
`economic reality test is the alleged employee's economic dependence on the employer.” Id.
`
`27.
`
`Here, Defendants had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff, and those similarly
`
`situated.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants controlled Plaintiff’s work schedule.
`
`Defendants scheduled Plaintiff and other cell tower laborers to certain shifts.
`
`Defendants required Plaintiff and other cell tower laborers to work a certain
`
`number of days during the week.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants required Plaintiff and other cell tower laborers to wear certain
`
`clothing.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants determined the rate and the method of payment of all cell tower
`
`laborers including Plaintiff.
`
`33.
`
`Cell tower laborers are an integral part of Defendants’ business.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 7 of 15
`
`34.
`
`Defendants maintained some records regarding the time Plaintiff and all and other
`
`cell tower laborers arrived and left, but failed to maintain full and accurate time records in
`
`contravention of the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirement.
`
`35.
`
`At all material times, Defendants have been employers within the meaning of 3(d)
`
`of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`36. Moreover, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) defines the term “employer”
`
`broadly to include “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in
`
`relation to any employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`37.
`
`The statutory definition of “employer” includes corporate officers, participating
`
`shareholders, supervisors, managers, or other employees where that individual exercises some
`
`supervisory authority over employees and is responsible in whole or in part for the alleged
`
`violation. See id.; Reich v. Circle C. Investments, Inc., 998 F.2d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 1993);
`
`Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966, 971-72 (5th Cir. 1984).
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief Defendant Quimby is the owner/manager of Defendant
`
`E&S.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief Defendant Schaeffer is an authorized representative
`
`and member of Defendant E&S.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer are involved in the day-to-day business
`
`operation of E&S.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer have responsibility for the supervision of the
`
`cell tower labors employed by E&S.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer are responsible for the compensation or lack
`
`thereof paid to cell tower laborers at E&S.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 8 of 15
`
`43.
`
`Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer have the authority to hire and fire employees,
`
`the authority to direct and supervise the work of employees, the authority to sign on the
`
`business’s checking accounts, including payroll accounts, and the authority to make decisions
`
`regarding employee compensation and capital expenditures.
`
`44.
`
`Additionally, Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer are responsible for the day-to-
`
`day affairs of the business. In particular, they are responsible for determining whether E&S
`
`complied with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer controlled the nature, pay structure, and
`
`employment relationship of the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members.
`
`46.
`
`As such, Defendants Quimby and Schaeffer are the employer of the Plaintiffs and
`
`Putative Class Members within the meaning of 3(d) of the FLSA, and are jointly, severally, and
`
`liable for all damages.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants acted in all respects material to this action
`
`as the agent of the other, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in material respects
`
`hereto, and the acts of each Defendant is legally attributable to each other.
`
`48.
`
`The unlawful acts alleged in this Complaint were committed by Defendants
`
`and/or Defendants’ officers, agents, employees, or representatives, while actively engaged in the
`
`management of Defendants’ business or affairs and with the authorization of the Defendants.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants also jointly employed Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated cell
`
`tower laborers.
`
`50.
`
`At all times material to this action Defendants directly or indirectly, controlled
`
`and directed all aspects of the day to day employment of Plaintiffs and all others similarly
`
`situated bartenders and wait staff including: (i) timekeeping; (ii) payroll; (iii) disciplinary
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 9 of 15
`
`actions; (iv) employment policies and procedures; (v) scheduling and hours; (vi) terms of
`
`compensation; (vii) human resources; (viii) hiring and firing; (vii) working conditions; and (viii)
`
`manner and method of such bartender’s and wait staff’s performance of their duties.
`
`B.
`
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are (or were) Cell Tower Laborers
`Throughout the United States
`
`51.
`
`Defendants’ cell tower laborers, including Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`Members performed cell tower installation, repairs, modernization and updates for Defendant’s
`
`customers throughout Florida and surrounding states.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants’ cell tower laborers are all non-exempt employees under the FLSA.
`
`Plaintiff Browder was employed as a non-exempt cell tower laborer in Florida and
`
`Georgia from March 2018 until April 2019.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Browder was compensated on a job/day rate determined by the number
`
`of hours worked in a day.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Browder did not receive the proper amount of overtime compensation for
`
`all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.
`
`56.
`
`The Putative Class Members are (or were) non-exempt cell tower laborers for
`
`Defendants throughout the United States for the 3-year period preceding the filing of this
`
`complaint through the final disposition of this matter.
`
`57.
`
`None of the FLSA exemptions relieving a covered employer of the statutory duty
`
`to pay employees overtime at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay apply to Defendants
`
`or Plaintiffs.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are similarly situated with respect to
`
`their job duties, their pay structure and, as set forth below, the policies of Defendants resulting in
`
`FLSA violations.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 10 of 15
`
`B.
`
`Defendants did not (and do not) pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
`overtime in accordance with the FLSA.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were (and are) required to work
`
`overtime hours when requested by Defendants, and were (and are) subject to potential
`
`disciplinary action for refusing to work overtime.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked over forty (40) hours
`
`in a workweek as a Waste Disposal Driver.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant compensated Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members on a purported
`
`job/day rate, without paying any overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a given
`
`workweek. 29 C.F.R. § 778.112.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants’ calculation of Plaintiff’s and the Putative Class Members’ regular
`
`rate of pay does not comply with the FLSA.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members one-half of the
`
`regular rate of each hour worked over 40 hours in a workweek.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff and Putative Class members were hired to work a regular workweek
`
`consisting of forty (40) hours per workweek, and it was Plaintiffs’ understanding that their wages
`
`would compensate them for forty (40) hours. Further, the day rate was based upon an eight (8)
`
`hour day and approximated the hourly rate that prevailed in the market for the type of work
`
`performed by Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. Plaintiff Browder was told he was being
`
`paid approximately $28/hour, but in reality was paid $220 ($27.50 x 8 hours) for every day that
`
`he worked, regardless of the number of hours he worked.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked over forty (40) hours
`
`in a workweek as cell tower laborers.
`
`66.
`
`The FLSA requires non-exempt employees, like Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 11 of 15
`
`Members to be compensated for overtime work at the mandated overtime pay rate.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were entitled to receive time and one-
`
`half compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.
`
`68.
`
`The payment scheme used by the Defendant to pay Plaintiff and the Putative
`
`Class Members did not comply with the FLSA.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants violated and continue to violate the FLSA by failing to pay its cell
`
`tower laborers, including Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, time and one-half for each
`
`hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.
`
`70.
`
`As Defendants’ employees, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were
`
`subjected to the same or a substantially similar payment scheme, as described above.
`
`71.
`
`On several occasions, Plaintiff and others complained to management that their
`
`overtime was not being calculated correctly and pleaded with them to correct it.
`
`72.
`
`In response to Plaintiffs’ complaints, Defendants told Plaintiff and others that they
`
`were paid a day rate and that the company would not pay them overtime at the regular rate of one
`
`and one half times their pay.
`
`COUNT I
`RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION (29 U.S.C. § 207)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-72 as though fully and
`
`73.
`
`completely set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
`
`the time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of forty (40) per workweek violates the FLSA. 29
`
`U.S.C. § 207.
`
`75.
`
`None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers
`
`to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which its
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 12 of 15
`
`employees are employed are applicable to Defendants or Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`Members.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants failed to keep adequate records of the Plaintiff and Putative Class
`
`Members’ work hours and pay in violation of section 211(c) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
`
`77.
`
`Federal law mandates that an employer is required to keep for three (3) years all
`
`payroll records and other records containing, among other things, the following information:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`The time of day and day of week on which the employees’ work week begins;
`
`The regular hourly rate or pay for any workweek in which overtime compensation
`is due under Section 7(a) of the FLSA;
`
`An explanation of the basis of pay by indicating the monetary amount paid on a
`per hour, per day, per week, or other basis;
`
`The amount and nature of each payment which, pursuant to section 7(e) of the
`FLSA, is excluded from the “regular rate”;
`
`The hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek;
`
`The total daily or weekly straight time earnings or wages due for hours worked
`during the workday or workweek, exclusive or premium overtime compensation;
`
`The total premium for overtime hours. This amount excludes the straight-time
`earnings for overtime hours recorded under this section;
`
`The total additions to or deductions from wages paid each pay period including
`employee purchase orders or wage assignments;
`
`The dates, amounts, and nature of the items which make up the total additions and
`deductions;
`
`The total wages paid each pay period; and
`
`The date of payment and the pay period covered by payment.
`
`29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2, 516.5.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants have not complied with the federal law and have failed to maintain
`
`such records with respect to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. Because Defendants’
`
`records are inaccurate and/or inadequate, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members can meet their
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 13 of 15
`
`burden under the FLSA by proving that they, in fact, performed work for which they were
`
`improperly compensated, and produce sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of the
`
`work “as a matter of a just and reasonable inference.” See, e.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery
`
`Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946).
`
`79.
`
`Defendants’ failure to properly compensate employees at a rate of at least one and
`
`one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a
`
`workweek, results from Defendants’ purported day rate payment policy or practice that applies to
`
`all similarly-situated employees, nationwide.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their
`
`illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation correctly with respect to
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`81.
`
`Specifically, despite the fact that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
`
`brought Defendants’ aforementioned illegal policies and FLSA violations to Defendants’
`
`attention throughout their employment, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff or the Putative Class
`
`Members their proper compensation as required by the FLSA.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon any of the following in
`
`formulating their pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., (c)
`
`Department of Labor Wage & Hour Opinion Letters or (d) the Code of Federal Regulations.
`
`83.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members bring this cause of action
`
`under section 216(b) of the FLSA, which allows them to recover all unpaid overtime
`
`compensation to which they are entitled, but have not been paid, for the 3-year period preceding
`
`the filing of this complaint through the final disposition of this matter. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 14 of 15
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members contend that Defendants’ conduct in
`
`violating the FLSA is willful. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members seek
`
`recovery of all unpaid overtime compensation to which they are entitled, but have not been paid,
`
`for the three years preceding the filing of this complaint through the final disposition of this
`
`matter. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`85.
`
`Due to the willful nature of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`Members seek to recover, as liquidated damages, an amount equal to unpaid overtime wages for
`
`the 3-year period preceding the filing of this complaint through the final disposition of this
`
`matter—that is, the same period for which unpaid overtime damages are sought. 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, respectfully
`
`requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendants:
`
`a. For an Order recognizing this proceeding as a collective action pursuant to
`Section 216(b) of the FLSA and requiring Defendants to provide the names,
`addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers
`of all Putative Class Members;
`
`b. For an Order approving the form and content of a notice to be sent to all
`potential collective action members advising them of the pendency of this
`litigation and of their rights with respect thereto;
`
`c. For a declaratory judgment that Defendants have willfully and in bad faith
`violated the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA, and have deprived
`Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of their rights to such compensation;
`
`d. For an Order requiring Defendants to provide a complete and accurate
`accounting of all overtime wages to which Plaintiff and all Putative Class
`Members;
`
`e. For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who have joined in the suit) back
`wages that have been improperly withheld;
`
`f. For an Order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA finding Defendants liable
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 9:21-cv-80337-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 15 of 15
`
`for unpaid back wages due to Plaintiff (and those who have joined in the suit),
`and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found
`due to Plaintiffs (and those who have joined in the suit);
`
`g. For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who have joined in the suit) the
`costs of this action;
`
`h. For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who have joined in the suit)
`attorneys’ fees;
`
`i. For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who have joined in the suit) pre-
`judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law;
`
`j. For an Order awarding Plaintiff a service award as permitted by law;
`
`k. For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and
`appropriate.
`
`Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted
`MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul M. Botros
`Paul M. Botros, Esq.
`FBN 0063365
`8151 Peters Road
`Suite 4000
`Plantation, FL 33324
`Telephone:
`(954) 318-0268
`Facsimile:
`(954) 327-3017
`Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`15
`
`