Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 1 of 8 PagelD #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`MEREDITH ARDEN,
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`:
`
`C.A. No.
`
`SEMAJ HEALTH AND WELLNESS and
`TASIA HENDERSON,
`Defendants
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1.
`
`Thisis an action broughtby Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking compensatory,
`
`and liquidated damages, as well as attorneys’ fees,litigation expenses and other equitablerelief,
`arising out ofthe unlawful failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation owedto the
`
`Plaintiff and misclassifying her as an independent contractor in violation of the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(““RIMWA”), R.LG.L. §28-12-1, et seq., §28-14-1,etseg.
`
`Il. Parties
`
`2.
`
`The Plaintiff, Meredith Arden, at all times relevantto this action, was a resident of
`
`the City of Pawtucket, County of Providence, State of Rhode Island, and was an employee, within
`
`the meaning of the FLSA and the RIMWA,employed by the Defendants.
`
`3,
`
`Defendant Semaj Health and Wellness (“‘Semaj”) is a Rhode Island corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located in the City of Warwick, County ofKent, State of Rhode
`
`Island.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Tasia Henderson (“Henderson”) is the owner, president, director,
`
`manager, and/or officer and agent of Defendant Semaj. Defendant Henderson hasacted, at all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`MEREDITH ARDEN,
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`:
`
`C.A. No.
`
`SEMAJ HEALTH AND WELLNESS and
`TASIA HENDERSON,
`Defendants
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1.
`
`Thisis an action broughtby Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking compensatory,
`
`and liquidated damages, as well as attorneys’ fees,litigation expenses and other equitablerelief,
`arising out ofthe unlawful failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation owedto the
`
`Plaintiff and misclassifying her as an independent contractor in violation of the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(““RIMWA”), R.LG.L. §28-12-1, et seq., §28-14-1,etseg.
`
`Il. Parties
`
`2.
`
`The Plaintiff, Meredith Arden, at all times relevantto this action, was a resident of
`
`the City of Pawtucket, County of Providence, State of Rhode Island, and was an employee, within
`
`the meaning of the FLSA and the RIMWA,employed by the Defendants.
`
`3,
`
`Defendant Semaj Health and Wellness (“‘Semaj”) is a Rhode Island corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located in the City of Warwick, County ofKent, State of Rhode
`
`Island.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Tasia Henderson (“Henderson”) is the owner, president, director,
`
`manager, and/or officer and agent of Defendant Semaj. Defendant Henderson hasacted, at all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 2 of 8 PagelD #: 2
`
`times material herein, directly and indirectly in the interest of Defendant Semaj relative to its
`
`employees and was,andis, therefore, an employerof the Plaintiff within the meaning of the FLSA
`
`and the RIMWA.
`
`5.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Semaj was engaged in the practice of providing
`
`consultations for alternative medicine and medical cannabis recommendationsto clients suffering
`
`from chronic mental health conditions and wasthe Plaintiff's employer within the meaning of 29
`
`U.S.C. §203(d).
`6.
`Atallrelevant times, Defendant Henderson wasthe President and CEO of and had
`
`operational control over Defendant Semaj and wastherefore also the Plaintiff's employer within
`
`the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(d). See Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1%. Cir. 1983) (“The
`
`overwhelming weight of authority is that a corporate officer with operational control ...
`
`is an
`
`employer along with the corporation, jointly and severally liable under the FLSA for unpaid
`
`wages.”); see also Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962, 965 (6"Cir. 1991), and cases
`
`cited therein.
`
`Ill. Jurisdiction
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction overthe Plaintiff's 29 U.S.C. §201 claim pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1331, 1367, 2201 and 2202, and supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims under
`
`the RIMWApursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
`
`IV. Venue
`
`8.
`
`Venue is properin this Court insofar as the Defendants do businessin the State of
`
`RhodeIsland and therefore are deemed to reside in the District of Rhode Island in compliance with
`
`_ the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1391. Furthermore, venue is proper insofaras a substantial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 3 of 8 PagelD #: 3
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the within claim occurred in this judicial district in
`
`compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1391.
`
`V. Material Facts
`
`9.
`
`On or about August 3, 2021, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a
`
`Behavioral Health Nurse Practitioner.
`
`10.
`
`Prior to her employment,
`
`the Plaintiff had an extensive conversation with
`
`Defendant Hendersonstating she would need to receive either a net bi-weekly salary of $6,000.00
`
`or a net monthly salary of $12,000.00 in orderforit to be feasible to work for Defendants.
`
`11.
`
`The Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffher requested amount and stated that she
`
`would be paid on a weekly basis, via direct deposit, through Gusto Payroll Services.
`
`12.
`
`Upon commencing employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff contacted Gusto
`
`Payroll Services andestablished an account to receive paychecks via direct deposit.
`
`13.
`
`That
`
`the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs employment status as an
`
`independent contractor, when the Plaintiff should have been considered and paid as an employee
`
`of the Defendants.
`
`14.
`
`During all relevant times, the Defendants maintained control of their working
`
`relationship with the Plaintiff,
`
`including, but not limited to, providing work supplies and
`
`equipment, providing a regular office location, billing for services provided by the Plaintiff,
`
`communicating directly with patients treated by the Plaintiff, and scheduling patientvisits.
`
`
`
`15.|The Defendants improperly reported the Plaintiffs 2021 wages on a Form 1099. .
`
`
`
`16.|Although she was informed that she would be paid on a weekly basis, the Plaintiff
`
`did notreceive herfirst paycheck until November 26, 2021 in the amount of $1,108.12.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 4 of 8 PagelD #: 4
`
`17.
`
`From August, 2021 until November, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff complained to the
`
`Defendants that she was not compensated for work performed.
`
`18.
`Because the Plaintiff was not paid for all compensable hours during several work
`weeks, the Plaintiffwas paid below the federal and state minimum wagefor several pay periods.
`
`19.
`
`The FLSA and the RIMWArequire an employer, like the Defendants, to pay its
`
`employees a minimum wage for each hour worked. 29 U.S.C. §206(a)(1); R-.LG.L. §28-12-3.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`As stated above,the Plaintiff was not paid for all work performed.
`
`During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the Defendants required
`
`the Plaintiff to work hours in excess of forty (40) hours most workweeks without pay or overtime
`
`pay. In fact, on average, the Plaintiff worked 45-50 hours per week.
`
`22.
`
`During her employment,the Plaintiffwas paid below the federal and state minimum
`
`wage.
`
`23.
`
`The FLSA and the RIMWArequire an employer, like the Defendants, to pay its
`
`employees a minimum wagefor each hour worked. 29 U.S.C. §206(a)(1); R.LG.L. §28-12-3.
`
`24.
`The FLSA and the RIMWArequire employers to pay their employeesat a rate not
`less than one and one-half times (1 4) their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
`
`forty (40) in any one (1) workweek. 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1); R.ILG.L. §28-12-4.1.
`
`25,
`
`The FLSA and the RIMWA exempt certain “bona fide executive, administrative,
`
`or professional” employees from its minimum wage and overtime provisions.
`29 U.S.C,
`§213(a)(1). The exempt or nonexemptstatus ofany particular employee is determined on the basis
`
`of whether the employee's salary and duties meet the requirements of the U. S. Department of
`
`Labor wage and hourregulations. 29 C.F.R. §541, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 5 of 8 PagelD #: 5
`
`26.
`
`Despite the fact that the Plaintiffwas a non-exempt employee, the Defendants failed
`
`to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime premiums on numerous workweeksas required
`by the FLSA and the RIMWA.
`
`27.
`
`The Defendants willfully and repeatedly violated the FLSA and the RIMWAfor
`
`failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages for each hour worked and by employing the Plaintiff
`
`for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours in said workweeks,at rates not less than one and one-
`
`half times her regular rate at which she was employed.
`
`28.
`
`On February 7, 2022, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff that they were closing
`
`Defendant Semaj, effective immediately. Thus, the Plaintiff's employment was terminated.
`
`29.
`
`The Defendants willfully and repeatedly violated the FLSA and the RIMWAfor
`
`failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages for each hour worked and overtime wages.
`
`30.
`
`The Defendants’ unlawful actions and/or omissions are in violation of the FLSA
`
`and the RIMWA and were motivated by malice and ill will toward the Plaintiff, and the
`
`Defendants’ actions were taken with reckless and callous indifference to the statutorily protected
`
`rights of the Plaintiff.
`
`31.
`
`Asa proximate result ofthe Defendants’ unlawful acts and/or omissions, including,
`
`but not limited to, those described herein, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss
`
`of incomeand other harm.
`
`VI. Claims for Relief
`
`32,
`
`The Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraphs 1-31 of this Complaint in each of the counts below with the same force and effect as if
`
`set forth therein.
`
`CountOne
`Violation of FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`§206
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 6 of 8 PagelD #: 6
`
`33.
`
`The Defendants, by their individual and/or concerted acts and/or omissions,
`
`including, but not limited to, those described herein, violated the FLSA by failing or refusing to
`
`pay for all hours worked, thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer damages as aforesaid, for which
`
`she is entitled to relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
`
`Count Two
`Violation of FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§207
`
`34,
`The Defendants, by their individual and/or concerted acts and/or omissions,
`including, but not limited to, those described herein, violated the FLSA byfailing or refusing to
`
`pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all work in excess of forty (40) hours performed in
`
`any one workweek, thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer damages as aforesaid, for which sheis
`
`entitled to relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
`
`Count Three
`Violation of RIMWA, R.LG.L, §28-12-1, et seg.
`
`35.
`
`The Defendants, by their individual and/or concerted acts and/or omissions,
`
`including, but not limited to, those described herein, violated the RIMWAbyfailing or refusing
`
`to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, including regular pay and overtime compensationforall
`
`work in excess of forty (40) hours performed in any one workweek, thereby causing the Plaintiff
`
`to suffer damagesas aforesaid, for which he isentitled to relief pursuant to R.ILG.L. §28-14-19.2
`
`and/or other applicable law.
`
`Count Four
`Violation of R.LG.L. §28-14-19.1, et seq.
`(Misclassification)
`
`36.
`
`The Defendants, by their individual and/or concerted acts and/or omissions,
`
`including, but not limited to,
`
`those described herein, violated the R.ILG.L. §28-14-19.1 by
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 7 of 8 PagelD #: 7
`
`misclassifying the Plaintiff as an independent contractor, thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer
`
`damagesas aforesaid, for whichshe is entitled to relief pursuant to R.LG.L. §28-14-19.2.
`
`VII. Prayers for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the followingrelief:
`
`1.
`
`a declaratory judgment declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the wage and
`
`overtime payment requirements under the FLSA and the RIMWAin the manner complained of
`
`herein;
`
`2.
`
`in thealternative, a declaratory judgment declaring that the Defendants violated the
`
`wage and overtime payment requirements under the FLSA and the RIMWAin the manner
`
`complained of herein;
`
`3.
`
`enjoining and permanently restraining the Defendants from violating the FLSA, and
`
`the RIMWA;
`
`4.
`
`award the Plaintiff back pay, including incremental increases and otherbenefits, plus
`
`prejudgmentinterest thereon;
`
`5.
`
`award the Plaintiff liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and R.I.G.L.
`
`§§28-14-19.2(a).
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`award the Plaintiff interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs;
`
`award the Plaintiff other appropriate equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b)
`
`and R.IL.G.L. §28-14-19.2(a); and,
`
`8.
`
`grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`VU. Demandfor Jury Trial
`
`The Plaintiff hereby demandsa trial by jury on all counts sotriable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00114-JJM-LDA Document1 Filed 03/22/22 Page 8 of 8 PagelD #: 8
`
`IX. Designation of Trial Counsel
`
`The Plaintiff hereby designates V. Edward Formisano, Esquire and Michael D. Pushee,
`
`Esquire, as trial counsel.
`
`Dated: March 22, 2022
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`Byher attorneys,
`FORMISANO & COMPANY,P.C.
`
`/s/ V. Edward Formisano
`V. Edward Formisano (#5512)
`
`/s/ Michael D. Pushee
`Michael D. Pushee (#6948)
`100 Midway Road.
`Cranston, RI 02920
`(401) 944-9691
`(401) 944-9695 (facsimile)
`edf@formisanoandcompany.com
`mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`[hereby certify that on the 22" day of March, 2022,I caused the within to be electronically
`filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island using the CM/ECF
`System.
`
`/s/ V. Edward Formisano
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
