Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 22-cv-0278
`
`:
`
`MARTIN J. WALSH, SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`LADY OF FATIMA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
`d/b/a LADY OF FATIMA HEALTHCARE
`SERVICES and FATMATA TURRAY,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, Martin J. Walsh, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
`
`(“Plaintiff”), brings this action to enjoin Lady of Fatima Health Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania
`
`corporation, d/b/a Lady of Fatima Healthcare Services, and Fatmata Turray, individually and as
`
`owner, officer, and manager of the aforementioned company, (collectively, “Defendants”), from
`
`violating the provisions of Sections 7, 11(c), 15(a)(2), and 15(a)(5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“the Act”), and for a judgment against Defendants in
`
`the total amount of back wage compensation found by the Court to be due to any of the employees
`
`of Defendants pursuant to the Act and an equal amount due to the employees of Defendants in
`
`liquidated damages.
`
`1.
`
`Jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon the Court by Section 17 of the Act, 29
`
`U.S.C. § 217, and by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Lady of Fatima Healthcare, Inc. (“Lady of Fatima”) is a corporation duly
`
`organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Lady of Fatima’s registered
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`address and principal place of business is 1335 Tabor Road, Suite 303, Philadelphia, PA 19141,
`
`within the jurisdiction of this Court. Lady of Fatima is engaged in a domestic homecare business
`
`operating out of this same location, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Fatmata Turray is the owner and a manager of Lady of Fatima. Ms.
`
`Turray directed employment practices and has directly or indirectly acted in the interest of Lady of
`
`Fatima in relation to its employees at all relevant times herein, including interviewing, hiring, and
`
`setting pay rates for employees, and setting the conditions of employment for employees at 1335
`
`Tabor Road, Suite 303, Philadelphia, PA 19141.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants employ persons in domestic service for profit, which affects commerce
`
`per Section 2(a)(5) of the Act. Lady of Fatima employees employed as direct care workers
`
`(“DCWs”) or caregivers provide in-home care services to Lady of Fatima’s clients.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Sections 7 and 15(a)(2) of the Act by
`
`employing their employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or handling goods or materials
`
`that have been moved in or produced for commerce for workweeks longer that those prescribed in
`
`Section 7 of the Act without compensating said employees for employment in excess of the
`
`prescribed hours at rates not less than one and one-half times their regular rates. Therefore,
`
`Defendants are liable for the payment of unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of
`
`liquidated damages under Section 16(c) of the Act.
`
`6.
`
`During the time period from at least March 24, 2017 through at least May 1, 2019,
`
`Defendants failed to compensate certain of their employees employed as direct care workers
`
`(“DCWs”) or caregivers (collectively, “employees”) who worked over 40 hours in a workweek at
`
`rates not less than one and one-half times their regular rates. During this time period, Defendants
`
`misclassified some direct care workers as independent contractors and paid them straight time for
`
`all hours worked, including overtime hours. These employees regularly worked over 40 hours in a
`
`workweek.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`7.
`
`Defendants also employed other direct care workers who worked for more than one
`
`client in a single workweek. These employees frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek.
`
`Defendants failed to combine hours that those employees worked during the week when they
`
`worked for multiple clients in the same week. For instance, an employee who worked 38 hours in a
`
`week for one client and 15 hours in the same week for another client received 53 hours of wages at
`
`the straight time rate, and did not receive overtime premium pay for the 13 hours of overtime work.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants knew of or recklessly disregarded their obligation to pay their employees
`
`one and one-half their regular rates for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. Defendants
`
`specifically told certain employees that they would not receive overtime pay for overtime hours
`
`worked. During a previous investigation by Wage and Hour covering the period from March 26,
`
`2015 to March 23, 2017, Wage and Hour told Fatmata Turray and Lady of Fatima that the FLSA
`
`required them to pay overtime premiums to its employees who worked more than 40 hours per
`
`week. Wage and Hour also told Defendants that they were misclassifying some DCWs as
`
`independent contractors, and that these DCWs were actually employees covered by the FLSA and
`
`entitled to overtime premium pay. Defendants nevertheless continued to pay certain employees
`
`straight time for overtime.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants violated the provisions of Sections 11(c) and 15(a)(5) of the Act in that
`
`Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve adequate and accurate records of the weekly hours
`
`worked by their employees, including failing to maintain records of the weekly overtime hours
`
`worked by their employees, which they were required to maintain by the regulations issued and
`
`found at 29 C.F.R. Part 516.
`
`WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, the Secretary prays for judgment against
`
`Defendants providing the following relief:
`
`(1)
`
`For an injunction issued pursuant to Section 17 of the Act permanently enjoining and
`
`restraining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`concert or participation with Defendants who receive actual notice of any such judgment, from
`
`violating the provisions of Sections 7, 11(c), 15(a)(2) and 15(a)(5) of the Act;
`
`(2)
`
`For judgment pursuant to Section 16(c) of the Act finding Defendants liable for
`
`unpaid overtime compensation due to certain of Defendants’ current and former employees listed in
`
`the attached Schedule A for the period from at least March 24, 2017 through at least May 1, 2019,
`
`and for an equal amount due to certain of Defendants’ current and former employees in liquidated
`
`damages. Additional amounts of back wages and liquidated damages may also be owed to certain
`
`current and former employees of Defendants listed in the attached Schedule A for violations
`
`continuing after May 1, 2019, and may be owed to certain current and former employees presently
`
`unknown to the Secretary for the period covered by this Complaint, who may be identified during
`
`this litigation and added to Schedule A;
`
`(3)
`
`For an injunction issued pursuant to Section 17 of the Act restraining Defendants,
`
`their officers, agents, employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with
`
`defendants, from withholding the amount of unpaid overtime compensation found due defendants’
`
`employees;
`
`(4)
`
`In the event liquidated damages are not awarded, for an Order awarding prejudgment
`
`interest computed at the underpayment rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to
`
`26 U.S.C. § 6621.
`
`FURTHER, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court award costs in his favor, and an order
`
`granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Mailing Address:
`
`U.S. Department of Labor
`Office of the Regional Solicitor
`1835 Market Street
`Mailstop SOL/22
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`(215) 861-5128 (voice)
`(215) 861-5162 (fax)
`
`luby.andrea@dol.gov
`
`Date: January 3, 2022
`
` UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
`
`Seema Nanda
`Solicitor of Labor
`
`Oscar L. Hampton III
`Regional Solicitor
`
`/s/ Andrea Luby
`By: Andrea Luby
`PA ID # 321609
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00278-MSG Document 1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`Eberhar, Briyel
`Lytle, Kenneth
`DeLarosa, Kim
`Mansaray, Evelyn
`Tannie, Halimun
`Fisher, Amey
`Ramirez, Carmen
`Graham, Bobbie
`Sweat, Margaret
`Abdulwahab, Sebrina
`Blackman, Jenny
`Alston, Alexis
`Pedro, Mena
`Dunbar, Makula
`Jones, Calvinette
`Hyater, Kalia
`Pender, Nadine
`Ming, Kanson
`Aliu, Olabinjo
`Isaacman, Carol
`Aliu, Kehinde
`Cordovi, Isabel
`Allen, Shonta
`Toure, Miriam
`Little, David
`Carter, Roslyn
`Lillo, Ida
`Garner, Antwine
`Stefler, Ana
`Bowen, Nakima
`Gilbert, Lucy
`Baker III, William
`Pallanti, Rosemarie
`Richardson, Jemal
`Warren, Lakeesha
`Kamara, Ahmed
`Williams, Jennifer
`Perez, Carmen
`Lopez, Elison
`Babatunde, Sia
`Allen, Monique
`Jalloh, Fatmata
`Kamara, Zainab
`
`
`
`
`
`Schedule A
`
`
`
`