Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. : 2:20-cv-219
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`JOSEPH ADAMS on Behalf of Himself
`and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
`Situated,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`GYRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION & JURY DEMAND
`
`Defendant Gyro Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) required Plaintiff Joseph Adams
`
`1.
`
`(“Plaintiff”) to work more than forty hours in a workweek as a wireline operator. Defendant
`
`misclassified Plaintiff and other wireline operators throughout the United States as exempt from
`
`overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq, and the
`
`corresponding laws of the other states where Defendant operates. Defendant has misclassified
`
`dozens of other wireline operators as exempt from overtime.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to
`
`be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their
`
`regular rates of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
`
`employees, Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`Members of the collective action are referred to as the “FLSA Class Members.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. : 2:20-cv-219
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`JOSEPH ADAMS on Behalf of Himself
`and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
`Situated,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`GYRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION & JURY DEMAND
`
`Defendant Gyro Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) required Plaintiff Joseph Adams
`
`1.
`
`(“Plaintiff”) to work more than forty hours in a workweek as a wireline operator. Defendant
`
`misclassified Plaintiff and other wireline operators throughout the United States as exempt from
`
`overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq, and the
`
`corresponding laws of the other states where Defendant operates. Defendant has misclassified
`
`dozens of other wireline operators as exempt from overtime.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to
`
`be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their
`
`regular rates of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
`
`employees, Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`Members of the collective action are referred to as the “FLSA Class Members.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
` This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because Defendant’s United States headquarters is
`
`in this District.
`
`PARTIES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiff Joseph Adams is an individual residing in Midland County, Texas.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s written consent to this action is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`6.
`
`The FLSA Class Members are all current and former wireline operators, and all
`
`employees in substantially similar positions, work worked at any time during the three-year period
`
`before the filing of this Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Gyro Technologies, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Texas and headquartered in Corpus Christi, Texas. Defendant may be served process
`
`through its registered agent Gary J. Vaughn, 3400 Country Rd 48, Robstown, Texas 78389
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Gyro Technologies, Inc. does business under the tradename Vaughn
`
`Energy Services.
`
`COVERAGE
`
`9.
`
`At all material times, Defendant has been an employer within the meaning of 3(d)
`
`of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`10.
`
`At all material times, Defendant has been an enterprise within the meaning of 3(r)
`
`of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`11.
`
`At all material times, Defendant has been an enterprise or enterprise in commerce
`
`or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 3(s)(1) of the FLSA because
`
`Defendant has had and continues to have employees engaged in commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
`
`12.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant has an annual gross business volume of not less than
`
`$500,000.
`
`13.
`
`At all material times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees who engaged
`
`in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 USC §§ 206-207.
`
`FACTS
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Gyro Technologies, Inc. is an oilfield services company that focuses on
`
`the provision of wireline services.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a wireline operator from approximately May of
`
`2013 to August of 2019. He worked for Defendant across the United States including in Texas,
`
`North Dakota, and Oklahoma.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff’s job title while employed with Defendant was wireline operator.
`
`A wireline operator is responsible for inserting tools and cable down a well,
`
`typically in the fracturing process.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant requires its wireline operators to work lengthy workweeks. Seven-day
`
`work weeks are common as are work weeks in excess of 80 hours.
`
`19.
`
`For compensation, wireline operators are paid a salary and a day rate for each day
`
`spent in the field. The day rate is not overtime pay, but rather a lump sum payment that must be
`
`included in the regular rates of pay.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff was paid a salary and an additional amount per day for working in the oil
`
`field.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`overtime.
`
`Plaintiff was subject to deductions from pay for sick leave.
`
`Plaintiff’s hourly regular rate of pay was never calculated for purposes of paying
`
`23.
`
`Defendant does not pay overtime to its wireline operators. Instead, they are only
`
`paid a flat monthly salary plus a day rate for each day spent in the field.
`
`24.
`
`No exemption in the FLSA shelters Defendant from paying overtime to its wireline
`
`operators.
`
`25. Wireline operators do not supervise other employees or manage a customarily
`
`recognized department of Defendant’s company.
`
`26. Wireline operators have no authority to hire or fire other employees.
`
`27. Wireline operators are field employees, not office employees. The perform work
`
`related to Defendant’s core business, not the management of the company’s operations.
`
`28.
`
`The primary duty of a wireline operator does not require independent judgment or
`
`discretion.
`
`29. Wireline operators are not computer-systems analysts, computer programmers,
`
`software engineers, or other similar employees.
`
`30. Wireline operators perform manual labor.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff performed manual labor while employed by Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff never hired or fired employees for Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff was not hired as a manager of a customized department nor did he
`
`supervise two or more employees.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff did not work as an administrative employee for Defendant.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff did not perform work for Defendant related to payroll, taxes, quality
`
`control, or human resources.
`
`36.
`
`Despite these facts, Defendant classified its wireline operators as exempt from
`
`overtime pay.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s pay policies, Plaintiff and other wireline operators were
`
`denied overtime pay.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether Plaintiffs and the other
`
`wireline operators were entitled to overtime pay under the law.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant has been sued multiple times for violating the FLSA.
`
` COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 207
`
` Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
`
` Defendant’s practice of failing to pay Plaintiff time-and-a-half for all hours worked
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`in excess of forty (40) per workweek violates the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 207.
`
`42.
`
` 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 employees
`
`are paid are applicable to Defendant or Plaintiff.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been denied
`
`overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek as a result of Defendant’s
`
`misclassification of its employees.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`45. Plaintiff’s knowledge is based on his personal work experience and through
`
`communications with other workers of Defendant. Plaintiff personally worked with wireline
`
`operators under the same compensation structure in different states.
`
`46.
`
`Other workers similarly situated to the Plaintiff worked for Defendant throughout
`
`the United States, but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half their regular rates of
`
`pay when those hours exceeded forty (40) hours in a workweek.
`
`47.
`
`Although Defendant permitted and/or required FLSA Class Members to work in
`
`excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, Defendant denied them full compensation for their hours
`
`worked over forty (40).
`
`48.
`
`Defendant misclassified and continues to misclassify FLSA Class Members as
`
`exempt employees.
`
`49.
`
`FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as
`
`Plaintiff and were misclassified as exempt by Defendant.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay under the FLSA.
`
`As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of relevant job
`
`duties, pay structure, misclassification as exempt employees and/or the denial of overtime pay.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rate required by the FLSA
`
`results from generally applicable policies or practices, and does not depend on the personal
`
`circumstances of any FLSA Class Member.
`
`53.
`
`The experiences of Plaintiff, with respect to his pay, hours, and duties are typical
`
`of the experiences of the FLSA Class Members.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant hired at least 30 other employees with the same job title as Plaintiff who
`
`were subject to the same or similar pay policies.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`55.
`
`The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class Member
`
`does not prevent collective treatment.
`
`56.
`
`All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are
`
`entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.
`
`57.
`
`Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the FLSA Class Members,
`
`the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims
`
`of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on a
`
`systematic course of wrongful conduct by Defendants that caused harm to all FLSA Class
`
`Members.
`
`58.
`
`As such, the class of similarly situated Plaintiffs for the FLSA Class is properly
`
`defined as follows:
`
`All current and former wireline operators, and all employees in
`substantially similar jobs, who worked for Defendant at any time
`during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
` Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand trial by jury on all issues.
`
`PRAYER
`
`For these reasons, Plaintiff prays for:
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`a. An order designating the FLSA Class as a collective action and authorizing notice
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for all wireline operators and all similarly situated
`employees to permit them join this action by filing a written notice of consent;
`
`b. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members all
`their unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages;
`
`c. An order awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and
`
`d. Such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00219 Document 1 Filed on 08/26/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Beatriz Sosa-Morris
`Beatriz-Sosa Morris
`SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
`BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
`Texas State Bar No. 24076154
`5612 Chaucer Drive
`Houston, Texas 77005
`Telephone: (281) 885-8844
`Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
`
`LEAD ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFF AND
`CLASS MEMBERS
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`John Neuman
`JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
`State Bar No. 24083560
`SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
`5612 Chaucer Drive
`Houston, Texas 77005
`Telephone: (281) 885-8630
`Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
