`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`DIANNE MCGOWAN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`v.
`
`CFG HEALTH NETWORK, LLC d/b/a
`CFG HEALTH NETWORK COMPANIES
`
`
`Case No. _____________________
`FLSA Collective Action
`FED. R. CIV. P. 23 Class Action
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`ORIGINAL CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`Like many other companies across the United States, CFG’s timekeeping and
`
`payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021.
`
`2.
`
`That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout CFG’s
`
`organization.
`
`3.
`
`As a result, CFG’s workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal
`
`and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime
`
`premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Dianne McGowan is one such CFG worker.
`
`CFG could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and
`
`properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were
`
`resolved.
`
`6.
`
`But it didn’t. Instead, CFG pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
`
`economically vulnerable people in its workforce.
`
`7.
`
`CFG made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line
`
`workers—average Americans—who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to
`
`make ends meet.
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID: 2
`
`8.
`
`After significant delay, CFG made payment of some of these outstanding
`
`wages. However, portions of these earned wages remain unpaid.
`
`9.
`
`CFG’s failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, on time and in full, for
`
`all hours worked violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
`
`10. CFG’s failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, on time and in full,
`
`violates the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJSWHL), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56a
`
`et seq., and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-4.1, et seq.
`
`11. McGowan brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages and
`
`other damages owed by CFG to her and CFG’s other non-overtime-exempt workers, who
`
`were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but CFG’s decision to make its own
`
`non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack.
`
`12.
`
`This action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by
`
`CFG to all these workers, along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by
`
`federal and New Jersey law.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 because this action involves a federal question under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`14.
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law sub-classes
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because CFG
`
`is headquartered in this District.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Dianne McGowan is a natural person.
`
`PARTIES
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID: 3
`
`17. McGowan was, at all relevant times, an employee of CFG.
`
`18. McGowan worked for CFG from April 2010 to February 2022.
`
`19. McGowan worked for CFG in New Jersey.
`
`20. McGowan worked for CFG in Warren County, New Jersey.
`
`21. McGowan represents at least two groups of similarly situated CFG workers.
`
`22. McGowan represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the
`
`FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This “FLSA Collective” is defined as:
`
`All current or former non-exempt employees of CFG who worked
`in the United States at any time since the onset of the Kronos
`ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present.
`
`23. McGowan represents a class of similarly situated workers under New Jersey
`
`law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This “New Jersey Class” is defined as:
`
`All current or former non-exempt employees of CFG who worked
`in New Jersey at any time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware
`attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present.
`
`24.
`
`Throughout this Complaint, the FLSA Collective members and New Jersey
`
`Class members are referred to jointly as the “Similarly Situated Workers.”
`
`25. Defendant CFG Health Network, LLC d/b/a CFG Health Network
`
`Companies (“CFG”) is a domestic limited liability company.
`
`26. CFG is headquartered in this District.
`
`27. At all relevant times, one or more of CFG’s ultimate members were citizens
`
`of New Jersey.
`
`28. CFG may be served by service upon its registered agent, Thomas J.
`
`Tamburelli, 4300 Haddonfield Rd., Ste. 311, Pennsauken, NJ 08109-3376, or by any other
`
`method allowed by law.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID: 4
`
`29. At all relevant times, CFG has been doing business under the assumed name,
`
`“CFH Health Network Companies.”
`
`30.
`
`Throughout this Complaint, CGF and its subsidiaries and alter egos are
`
`referred to jointly as “CFG.”
`
`31. CFG’s subsidiaries and alter egos include, but are not limited to:
`
`
`
`
`
`Center for Family Guidance, PC
`CFG Health Systems, LLC
`CFG Residentials, LLC
`
`32. At all relevant times, CFG exerted operational control over its subsidiaries
`
`and alter egos.
`
`33. At all relevant times, CFG substantially controlled the terms and conditions
`
`of employment for workers of its subsidiaries and alter egos.
`
`34. At all relevant times, CFG had a common control and management of labor
`
`relations regarding employees of its subsidiaries and alter egos.
`
`35. CFG employed and/or jointly employed, with its subsidiaries and alter egos,
`
`McGowan and the Similarly Situated Workers.
`
`36. CFG and its subsidiaries and alter egos are joint employers for purposes of
`
`the FLSA.
`
`37. CFG and its subsidiaries and alter egos are joint employers for purposes of
`
`New Jersey law.
`
`COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA
`
`38. At all relevant times, CFG was an employer of McGowan within the meaning
`
`of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID: 5
`
`39. At all relevant times, CFG was and is an employer of the FLSA Collective
`
`Members within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`40. CFG was and is part of an enterprise within the meaning of Section 3(r) of
`
`the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
`
`41. During at least the last three years, CFG has had gross annual sales in excess
`
`of $500,000.
`
`42. CFG was and is part of an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
`
`production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
`
`43. CFG employs many workers, including McGowan, who are engaged in
`
`commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or who handle, sell, or
`
`otherwise work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce
`
`by any person.
`
`44.
`
`The goods and materials handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by McGowan
`
`and other CFG employees and that have been moved in interstate commerce include, but
`
`are not limited to, medical equipment and supplies.
`
`FACTS
`
`45. CFG is a healthcare provider that provides medical and mental health
`
`services.
`
`46. Many of CFG’s employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried workers.
`
`47.
`
`Since at least 2021, CFG has used timekeeping software and hardware
`
`operated and maintained by Kronos.
`
`48. On or about December 11, 2021, Kronos was hacked with ransomware.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID: 6
`
`49.
`
`The Kronos hack interfered with the ability of its customers, including CFG,
`
`to use Kronos’s software and hardware to track hours and pay employees.
`
`50.
`
`For at least a portion of time following the Kronos hack, CFG failed to keep
`
`accurate track of the hours that McGowan and Similarly Situated Workers worked.
`
`51.
`
`Instead, CFG has used various methods to estimate the number of hours
`
`McGowan and Similarly Situated Workers work in each pay period.
`
`52.
`
`For example, CFG issued paychecks based on scheduled hours or estimated
`
`hours, or simply duplicated paychecks from pay periods prior to the Kronos hack.
`
`53. As a result of CFG’s failure to accurately track the actual hours worked each
`
`week, employees who were non-exempt and worked overtime were in many cases paid less
`
`than the hours they worked in the workweek, including overtime hours.
`
`54. Many employees were not even paid for all their non-overtime wages for
`
`hours worked in certain workweeks.
`
`55. McGowan is one of the many employees affected by these pay and
`
`timekeeping practices.
`
`56.
`
`Instead of paying McGowan for the hours she actually worked (including
`
`overtime hours), CFG simply paid based on estimates of time or pay, or based upon
`
`arbitrary considerations other than McGowan’s actual hours worked and regular pay rates,
`
`in multiple workweeks.
`
`57.
`
`In properly calculating and paying overtime to a non-exempt employee, the
`
`only metrics that are needed are: (1) the number of hours worked in a day or week, and (2)
`
`the employee’s regular rate, taking into account shift differentials, non-discretionary
`
`bonuses, and other factors allowed under the law.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID: 7
`
`58. CFG knows it has to pay proper overtime premiums to non-exempt hourly
`
`and salaried employees.
`
`59. CFG knows this because, prior to the Kronos hack, it routinely paid these
`
`workers for all overtime hours at the proper overtime rates.
`
`60. CFG could have instituted any number of methods to accurately track and
`
`timely pay its employees for all hours worked.
`
`61.
`
`Instead of accurately tracking hours and paying employees their overtime,
`
`CFG decided to arbitrarily pay these employees, without regard to the overtime hours they
`
`worked or the regular rates at which they were supposed to be paid.
`
`62.
`
`It was feasible for CFG to have its employees and managers report accurate
`
`hours so they could be timely paid the full and correct amounts of money they were owed
`
`for the work they did for the company.
`
`63.
`
`But CFG chose not to do that.
`
`64.
`
`In other words, CFG pushed the effects of the Kronos hack onto the backs of
`
`its most economically vulnerable workers, making sure that it kept the money it owed to
`
`those employees in its own pockets, rather than take steps to make sure its employees were
`
`paid on time and in full for the work they did.
`
`65. McGowan is just one of the many CFG employees who had to shoulder the
`
`burden of this decision by CFG.
`
`66. McGowan was a non-exempt hourly employee of CFG.
`
`67. McGowan regularly worked over 40 hours per week for CFG.
`
`68. McGowan’s normal, pre-Kronos hack hours are reflected in CFG’s records.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID: 8
`
`69.
`
`Since the Kronos hack, CFG has not paid McGowan on time, it at all, for her
`
`actual hours worked each week.
`
`70.
`
`Since the hack took place, CFG has not been accurately recording the hours
`
`worked by McGowan and its other workers.
`
`71.
`
`Even when CFG has issued payment to McGowan for any overtime, the
`
`overtime is not calculated based on McGowan’s regular rates, as required by federal law.
`
`72. CFG was aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
`
`73. CFG nonetheless failed to pay the full overtime premium owed to certain
`
`non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, such as McGowan.
`
`74. CFG’s failure to pay overtime to these non-exempt workers was, and is, a
`
`willful violation of the FLSA.
`
`75.
`
`The full overtime wages owed to McGowan and the Similarly Situated
`
`Workers became “unpaid” when the work for CFG was done—that is, on McGowan and
`
`the Similarly Situated Workers’ regular paydays. E.g., Martin v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl.
`
`611, 618 (2014); Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1540 (9th Cir.1993); Cook v. United States, 855
`
`F.2d 848, 851 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Olson v. Superior Pontiac–GMC, Inc., 765 F.2d 1570, 1579 (11th
`
`Cir.1985), modified, 776 F.2d 265 (11th Cir.1985); Atlantic Co. v. Broughton, 146 F.2d 480, 482
`
`(5th Cir.1944); Birbalas v. Cuneo Printing Indus., 140 F.2d 826, 828 (7th Cir.1944).
`
`76. At the time CFG failed to pay McGowan and the Similarly Situated Workers
`
`in full for their overtime hours by their regular paydays, CFG became liable for all
`
`prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, penalties, and any other damages owed under the
`
`law.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID: 9
`
`77.
`
`In other words, there is no distinction between late payment and nonpayment
`
`of wages under the law. Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1540 (9th Cir.1993).
`
`78. Any payment made by CFG to McGowan or the Similarly Situated Workers
`
`that CFG may allege represents previously unpaid wages was not supervised by the
`
`Department of Labor or any court.
`
`79.
`
`The untimely payment of overtime wages, in itself, does not resolve a claim
`
`for unpaid wages under the law. See, e.g., Seminiano v. Xyris Enterp., Inc., 602 Fed.Appx. 682,
`
`683 (9th Cir. 2015); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-54 (11th Cir.
`
`1982).
`
`80. Nor does the untimely payment of wages, if any, compensate workers for the
`
`damages they incurred due to CFG’s acts and omissions resulting in the unpaid wages in the
`
`first place.
`
`81. McGowan and the Similarly Situtated Workers remain uncompensated for
`
`the wages and other damages owed by CFG under federal and New Jersey law.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`82. McGowan incorporates all other allegations.
`
`83. Numerous individuals were victimized by CFG’s patterns, practices, and
`
`policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.
`
`84.
`
`Based on her experiences and tenure with CFG, McGowan is aware that
`
`CFG’s illegal practices were imposed on the FLSA Collective.
`
`85.
`
`The FLSA Collective members were not paid their full overtime premiums on
`
`time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID: 10
`
`86.
`
`These employees are victims of CFG’s respective unlawful compensation
`
`practices and are similarly situated to McGowan in terms of the pay provisions and
`
`employment practices at issue in the collective in this lawsuit.
`
`87.
`
`The workers in the FLSA Collective were similarly situated within the
`
`meaning of the FLSA.
`
`88. Any differences in job duties do not detract from the fact that these FLSA
`
`non-exempt workers were entitled to overtime pay.
`
`89. CFG’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by the
`
`FLSA result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices, which are not
`
`dependent on the personal circumstances of the FLSA Collective members.
`
`90.
`
`The FLSA Collective should be notified of this action and given the chance to
`
`join pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`91. McGowan incorporates all other allegations.
`
`92.
`
`The illegal practices CFG imposed on McGowan were likewise imposed on
`
`the New Jersey Class members.
`
`93. Numerous other individuals who worked for CFG were were not properly
`
`compensated for all hours worked, as required by New Jersey law.
`
`94.
`
`The New Jersey Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the class
`
`is impracticable.
`
`95. CFG imposed uniform practices and policies on McGowan and the New
`
`Jersey Class members regardless of any individualized factors.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID: 11
`
`96.
`
`Based on her experience and tenure with CFG, as well as coverage of the
`
`Kronos hack, McGowan is aware that CFG’s illegal practices were imposed on the New
`
`Jersey Class members.
`
`97. New Jersey Class members were all not paid their proper overtime on time, if
`
`at all, when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
`
`98. CFG’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation in accordance with
`
`New Jersey law results from generally applicable, systematic policies and practices which are
`
`not dependent on the personal circumstances of the New Jersey Class members.
`
`99. McGowan’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the New
`
`Jersey Class members.
`
`100. McGowan has no interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the members of the
`
`New Jersey Class. Like each member of the proposed class, McGowan has an interest in
`
`obtaining the unpaid wages and other damages owed under the law.
`
`101. A class action, such as this one, is superior to other available means for fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.
`
`102. Absent this action, many New Jersey Class members likely will not obtain
`
`redress of their injuries and CFG will reap the unjust benefits of violating New Jersey law.
`
`103. Furthermore, even if some of the New Jersey Class members could afford
`
`individual litigation against CFG, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.
`
`104. Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and
`
`parity among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial
`
`consistency.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID: 12
`
`105. The questions of law and fact common to each of the New Jersey Class
`
`members predominate over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among
`
`the common questions of law and fact are:
`
`a. Whether CFG paid McGowan and the New Jersey Class members
`overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in
`excess of 40 in a workweek;
`
`b. Whether CFG’s failure to pay overtime at the rates required by law
`violated New Jersey’s wage and hour laws;
`
`c. Whether McGowan and the New Jersey Class members were paid all
`wages due within the periods of time allowed by the NJWPL;
`
`d. Whether CFG’s failure to timely pay wages due to McGowan and the
`New Jersey Class members violated the NJWPL; and
`
`e. Whether CFG’s NJWPL violations were committed knowingly.
`
`106. McGowan’s claims are typical of the New Jersey Class members. McGowan
`
`and the New Jersey Class members have all sustained damages arising out of CFG’s illegal
`
`and uniform employment policies.
`
`107. McGowan knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management
`
`of this litigation that would preclude its ability to go forward as a class or collective action.
`
`108. Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character,
`
`there is no detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue does
`
`not preclude class action treatment.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—OVERTIME VIOLATIONS OF THE FLSA
`AS TO MCGOWAN AND THE FLSA COLLECTIVE
`
`109. McGowan incorporates all other allegations.
`
`110. By failing to pay McGowan and the FLSA Collective members overtime at
`
`1.5 times their regular rates when the payments were due, CFG violated the FLSA. 29
`
`U.S.C. § 207(a).
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID: 13
`
`111. CFG owes McGowan and the FLSA Collective members overtime for all
`
`hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rates
`
`of pay.
`
`112. Likewise, CFG owes McGowan and the FLSA Collective members their
`
`agreed-upon rates of pay for all hours worked up to and including 40 each week in which
`
`they worked over 40 hours in the week, but were not paid in full for all hours.
`
`113. CFG knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal
`
`pattern and practice of failing to pay the FLSA Collective members overtime compensation.
`
`114. Because CFG knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, its pay
`
`practices violated the FLSA, CFG owes these wages for at least the past three years.
`
`115. CFG’s failure to pay overtime compensation to these FLSA Collective
`
`members was neither reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay overtime made in good
`
`faith.
`
`116. Because CFG’s decision not to pay overtime was not made in good faith,
`
`CFG also owes McGowan and the FLSA Collective members an amount equal to the
`
`unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages.
`
`117. Accordingly, McGowan and the FLSA Collective members are entitled to
`
`their full overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5x their regular rates of
`
`pay, plus liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATIONS OF THE NJSWHL
`AS TO MCGOWAN AND THE NEW JERSEY CLASS
`
`118. McGowan incorporates all other allegations.
`
`119. The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the NJWHL.
`
`120. CFG was and is an “employer” within the meaning of the NJWHL.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID: 14
`
`121. At all relevant times, CFG employed McGowan and the other New Jersey
`
`Class members as “employees” within the meaning of the NJSWHL.
`
`122. The NJSWHL, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56a4(b), requires an employer like
`
`CFG to pay overtime to all non-exempt employees.
`
`123. McGowan and the other New Jersey Class members are non-exempt
`
`employees who are entitled to be paid overtime for all overtime hours worked.
`
`124. The NJSWHL, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56a4(b), requires overtime to be paid
`
`at a rate of no less than 1.5x the employee’s regular hourly rate for each hour of working
`
`time in excess of 40 each week.
`
`125. Within the applicable limitations period, CFG had a policy and practice of
`
`failing to pay proper overtime to the New Jersey Class members for their hours worked in
`
`excess of 40 hours per week.
`
`126. As a result of CFG’s failure to pay proper overtime to McGowan and the
`
`New Jersey Class members for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, CFG
`
`violated the NJSWHL.
`
`127. McGowan and the New Jersey Class members are entitled to overtime wages
`
`under the NJSWHL in an amount equal to 1.5x their rates of pay, liquidated damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, costs, penalties, interest, and all other legal and equitable relief provided by
`
`the NJSWHL, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56a25, and the New Jersey Administrative Code,
`
`§ 12:56-1.5.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATIONS OF THE NJWPL
`AS TO MCGOWAN AND THE NEW JERSEY CLASS
`
`128. McGowan incorporates all other allegations.
`
`129. The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the NJWPL.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID: 15
`
`130. CFG was and is an “employer” within the meaning of the NJWPL. N.J. Stat.
`
`Ann. § 34:11-4.1(a).
`
`131. At all relevant times, CFG employed McGowan and the other New Jersey
`
`Class members as “employees” within the meaning of the NJWPL. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-
`
`4.1(b).
`
`132. McGowan and the other New Jersey Classs members’ earned wages for their
`
`work for CFG includes all monetary compensation for their labor and services. N.J. Stat.
`
`Ann. § 34:11-4.1(c).
`
`133. The NJWPL requires an employer like CFG to pay the full amount of wages
`
`due to each employee at least twice each month on regular, pre-designated paydays. N.J.
`
`Stat. Ann. § 34:11-4.2.
`
`134. The NJWPL requires an employer like CFG to pay all wages due to
`
`employees within 10 days after the end of the period in which the wages were earned. N.J.
`
`Stat. Ann. § 34:11-4.2.
`
`135. CFG knew it had to pay McGowan and the New Jersey Class members all
`
`wages due within the time provided by the NJWPL, but did not do so.
`
`136. Within the applicable limitations period, CFG had a policy and practice of
`
`failing to pay all wages due within the time period allowed under the NJWPL.
`
`137. As a result of CFG’s failure to timely pay all wages due to McGowan and the
`
`New Jersey Class members, CFG violated the NJWPL.
`
`138. McGowan and the New Jersey Class members are entitled to their unpaid
`
`wages, liquidated damages of twice the amount of unpaid wages, attorney’s fees, costs,
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 16
`
`penalties, interest, and all other legal and equitable relief provided by the NJWPL, N.J. Stat.
`
`Ann. § 34:11-4.10(c).
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`139. McGowan demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`McGowan prays for judgment against CFG as follows:
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`For an order certifying a collective action for the FLSA claims;
`
`For an order certifying a class action for the New Jersey law claims;
`
`For an order finding CFG liable for violations of federal wage laws
`with respect to McGowan and all FLSA Collective members covered
`by this case;
`
`For an order finding CFG liable for violations of New Jersey wage
`laws with respect to McGowan and all New Jersey Class members
`covered by this case;
`
`For a judgment awarding all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
`penalties under federal wage laws to McGowan and all FLSA
`Collective members covered by this case;
`
`For a judgment awarding all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
`penalties under New Jersey wage laws to McGowan and all New
`Jersey Class members covered by this case;
`
`For an equitable accounting and restitution of wages due to McGowan
`and all FLSA Collective and New Jersey Class members members
`covered by this case;
`
`For a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees to McGowan and all FLSA
`Collective and New Jersey Class members covered by this case;
`
`For a judgment awarding costs of this action to McGowan and all
`FLSA Collective and New Jersey Class members covered by this case;
`
`For a judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest
`rates allowed by law to McGowan and all FLSA Collective and New
`Jersey Class members covered by this case; and
`
`For all such other and further relief as may be necessary and
`appropriate.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 05/11/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID: 17
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Andrew R. Frisch
`Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
`MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
`8151 Peters Road
`Suite 4000
`Plantation, FL 33324
`Telephone:
`(954) WORKERS
`Facsimile:
`(954) 327-3013
`Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
`
`Matthew S. Parmet
`TX Bar # 24069719
`(seeking admission pro hac vice)
`PARMET PC
`3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
`Houston, TX 77056
`phone 713 999 5228
`matt@parmet.law
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`- 17 -
`
`