`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`CHAD HILL, on behalf of himself
`and others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-97
`
`
`
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Chad Hill (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, files this Class
`
`and Collective Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against Pepperidge Farm, Inc. (“Defendant” or
`
`“Pepperidge Farm”), and in support states the following:
`
`1.
`
`The named Plaintiff and putative Plaintiffs are current and former Pepperidge Farm
`
`“Consignees” who worked in Virginia within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.
`
`Plaintiffs were classified and compensated as Independent Contractors by Pepperidge Farm.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff and those similarly situated are employees of Pepperidge Farm and have
`
`been misclassified. Through this proceeding they seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
`
`minimum wages, unpaid regular wages, and all other allowable damages and recoveries pursuant
`
`to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Virginia State law. They also seek to recover damages
`
`associated with their misclassification pursuant to § 40.1-28.7:7.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, 2202 and Plaintiff seeks this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events forming
`
`the basis of this suit occurred in this District.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`Nature of this Lawsuit
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is a large baker and distributor of packaged snack food, bakery, and
`
`bread products sold to consumers throughout the U.S. and in other countries at thousands of
`
`groceries, convenience, and other stores.
`
`7.
`
`Though referred to as a “Consignee” and/or Independent Contractor, Defendant
`
`employed/employs the Plaintiff to deliver and stock its products to stores in an assigned territory,
`
`primarily comprised of cities and towns within Southwest Virginia.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant employed Plaintiff and other individuals who performed identical job
`
`duties within unique assigned Virginia territories.
`
`9.
`
`As was the case with the Plaintiff, Defendant labeled/labels all such individuals as
`
`Consignees and/or Independent Contractors.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant paid Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, a percentage of sales made
`
`within their territory.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant’s Consignees regularly worked over 40 hours per week and were not
`
`paid overtime for those hours over 40.
`
`The Parties
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff is a Virginia resident and has worked for Defendant as a Consignee in
`
`Virginia, within Counties in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia (including
`
`Brunswick, Nottoway, and Mecklenburg Counties) since at least 2015.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 3
`
`13.
`
`Defendant is a Connecticut corporate entity that is licensed to do business in
`
`Virginia and maintains its principal office at 595 Westport Ave, Norwalk, CT, 06851, USA.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant’s parent company, Campbell Soup Company is a public company with
`
`stock trading on the New York Stock exchange under the ticker “CPB.”
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`15.
`
`Defendant manufactures and distributes snack food and packaged bake goods for
`
`retail sales.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant distributes its products to stores through Consignees like the Plaintiff
`
`and those similarly situated.
`
`17.
`
`In order to deliver product on behalf of Defendant, Consignees are required to
`
`contract with Defendant through a boilerplate Consignment Agreement. A copy of the
`
`Consignment Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`18.
`
`The Consignment Agreement purports to set forth all aspects of the relationship
`
`between Consignees and Defendant and declares
`
`that Consignees are “Independent
`
`Businessm[e]n” and refers to the relationship as an “independent contractor relationship” rather
`
`than an employment relationship.
`
`19.
`
`Under the terms of the Consignment Agreement, Consignees are made to pay for
`
`the right to deliver and distribute Defendant’s product within their assigned territory, but all actual
`
`control over the product, route, and territory belongs to the Defendant. Moreover, according to the
`
`annual report of Defendant’s parent company, the loans used by Plaintiff and many other similarly
`
`situated Consignees to finance the purchase of such routes are guaranteed by the Defendant’s
`
`parent company (worth an approximate value of $199M as of the 2020 fiscal year end).
`
`Additionally, the Defendant may deduct from money otherwise owed to a Consignee attendant to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 4
`
`product delivery if that Consignee owes money associated with the guarantee.
`
`20.
`
`The Defendant maintains discretion to terminate the Consignment Agreement at
`
`any time without cause. Further, Consignees are not allowed to sell their routes, or any part of their
`
`route without Defendant’s subjective approval of the purchaser.
`
`21.
`
`Additionally, the Consignment Agreement’s subjective “for cause” termination
`
`provisions create a still further level of control for the Defendant, including, but not limited to:
`
`a. “Failure of Consignee adequately to realize the sales potential of the
`
`Territory[….],”
`
`b. “Failure of Consignee to perform or comply with any material term or provision
`
`of this Agreement [….]”
`
`c. “Any dishonesty of Consignee in his/her dealings with Bakery or with others in
`
`connection with Consignee's distribution[….]”
`
`d. “Any actions, activities or practices of Consignee which either do, or in the
`
`opinion of Bakery are likely to, materially damage the reputation of Bakery
`
`and/or Bakery’s relations or reputation [….]
`
`22.
`
`Despite the Consignment Agreement’s proclamation, an individual’s employee
`
`status under the FLSA is determined by “economic realities of the relationship between the worker
`
`and the putative employer,” Schultz v. Capital International Security, Inc., 466 F.3d 298, 304 (4th
`
`Cir. 2006).
`
`23.
`
`The economic reality of the relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiff,
`
`and those similarly situated, is that of an employment relationship. Both factually, and set out in
`
`the Consignment Agreement, the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are, and have been
`
`misclassified as Independent Contractors. Indeed, very little separates their employment from that
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 5
`
`of a standard delivery-person employee. For example:
`
`a. Defendants closely monitor and direct the day-to-day operation of Consignees.
`
`Consignees have little to no discretion over their customers, nor the products
`
`they distribute.
`
`b. The Consignment Agreement prohibits Consignees from distribution of
`
`products competitive to Defendant.
`
`c. The Consignment Agreement prohibits Consignees from distributing
`
`Defendant’s product outside of their assigned territory.
`
`d. The Defendant retains the right to allocate product as it sees fit within a
`
`Consignee’s territory.
`
`e. The Defendant may reduce a Consignee’s territory if the Defendant is not
`
`satisfied that the territory or stores within the territory are being appropriately
`
`serviced by the Consignee.
`
`f. The Defendant may reduce or discontinue a Consignee’s allotment of product
`
`should it determine that the Consignee has failed to fulfill any obligation of the
`
`Consignment Agreement.
`
`g. Consignees are not permitted discretion in their customer base nor in product
`
`pricing nor in the way Defendant’s products are displayed once in stores.
`
`h. Absent Defendant’s permission, Consignees are not allowed to deliver to chain
`
`store warehouses nor directly to consumers, hotels, or restaurants.
`
`i. The position of Consignee requires no special skill or training, aside from a
`
`normal driver’s license.
`
`j. Consignees tend to have long term relationships with the Defendant.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 6
`
`k. The function of the Consignees is essential and integral to Defendant’s
`
`operations. Without them, Defendant’s product would not be delivered and
`
`stocked by stores and would never be sold to consumers.
`
`24.
`
`Consignees use a variety of vehicles for the purpose of distributing Defendant’s
`
`products including personal automobiles weighing significantly less than 10,000 pounds.
`
`25.
`
`For instance, on at least a weekly basis, Plaintiff used a vehicle which weighed less
`
`than 10,000 pounds, and did not use a trailer, for delivery routes that were close to his home.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Consignees regularly work more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week.
`
`Defendant pays Consignees commissions based on sales and/or deliveries made to
`
`stores. Consignees were not paid a salary and received no minimum payment from Defendant.
`
`28.
`
`Consignees were misclassified as Independent Contractors, and as such:
`
`a. They received no overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours in
`
`a week.
`
`b. Their compensation was illegally charged back for inventory gaps or
`
`irregularities, pallet fees, escalations (i.e., out of stock fines), and various
`
`‘offenses’ such as having too much stale product.
`
`c. Defendant failed to keep track of the hours they worked or provide pay record
`
`reflecting the hours worked.
`
`29.
`
`Consignees are subject to close oversight by Defendant’s managerial employees,
`
`including sales managers. Such employees regularly evaluate the performance of Consignees.
`
`30.
`
`The Defendant also sets sales goals that Consignees are required to meet. Where a
`
`Consignee’s performance is deemed wanting, the Defendant can send correction letters, which if
`
`not remedied to the Defendant’s satisfaction, will lead to the removal of portions of territories, or
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 7
`
`to full termination of the Consignee’s contract.
`
`31.
`
`The Defendant requires Consignees to keep records of sales and deliveries and
`
`maintains the right to review and inspect Consignee records and products. The Defendant has the
`
`additional right to take possession of Consignee’s physical inventory as often as it desires.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant tracks Consignees’ performance, through scanning software which
`
`Defendant requires its Consignees to purchase directly from Defendant.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant is an “enterprise” as defined by the FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).
`
`Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
`
`commerce as defined by the FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
`
`35.
`
`Defendant has made more than $500,000 in sales made or business done in each of
`
`the last three calendar years.
`
`36.
`
`During his employment, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendant as defined by
`
`the FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).
`
`37.
`
`During his employment, Defendant was Plaintiff’s “employer” as defined by the
`
`FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`Collective Action Allegations
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim as a collective action and his consent to join this
`
`collective action as a representative Plaintiff is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`39.
`
`The collective action is defined as follows:
`
`All Consignees who were classified as independent contractors and worked for
`Defendant within the borders of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who drove a
`vehicle weighing less than 10,000 pounds in any workweek, and who worked more
`than 40 hours in any workweek within three years from the date he/she files a
`consent form to participate in this lawsuit (“Collective Action Members”).
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff is similarly situated to the potential Collective Action Members because
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 8
`
`they were paid in the same manner, performed the same primary job duties, and were subject to
`
`identical and/or near identical Consignment Agreements and other attendant contracts with the
`
`Defendant.
`
`41.
`
`In the last three years, Defendant employed individuals who performed the same
`
`primary job duties as Plaintiff.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed the same primary job duties, were
`
`classified as independent contractors exempt from the overtime and/or minimum wage provisions
`
`of the FLSA, were paid only on a commission basis, and were subject to deductions or
`
`chargebacks.
`
`43.
`
`Of Consignees classified as independent contractors who performed the same
`
`primary job duties as Plaintiff in the last three years, some or all worked over 40 hours in individual
`
`workweeks.
`
`44.
`
`Of Consignees classified as independent contractors who performed the same
`
`primary job duties as Plaintiff in the last three years, some or all worked during weeks where they
`
`were made to expend out-of-pocket costs that were for Defendant’s benefit and to absorb various
`
`Defendant mandated deductions. Taken together, these expenditures and deductions meant that in
`
`certain weeks, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, earned less than the minimum wage.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant has names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for potential
`
`Collective Action Members in its payroll or personnel or consignee records.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant is aware or should have been aware that the FLSA required it to pay
`
`potential Collective Action Members overtime if they are employees rather than independent
`
`contractors.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant assigned the Collective Action Members routes and duties that could not
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 9
`
`be completed in 40 hours or less per week.
`
`48.
`
`Based on the size of the routes, Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge
`
`that the Collective Action Members spent more than 40 hours per week working for Defendant.
`
`49. Within the last five years alone, the Defendant, as well several other companies
`
`operating within the snack food space have faced lawsuits regarding misclassification of
`
`Consignees and other differently titled, but similarly functioning, so-called independent
`
`contractors.
`
`
`
`Class Action Allegations
`
`A.
`
`50.
`
`Class Definition
`
`Plaintiff, the Rule 23 Class Representative, seeks to maintain claims pursuant to
`
`Va. Code §§ 40.1-28.7:7, 40.1-29, and 40.1-29.2, individually, and on behalf of classes of current
`
`and former Consignees who:
`
`a) During any time since July 1, 2020, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors and were assigned and/or worked routes primarily or exclusively within
`
`Virginia;
`
`b) During any time since July 1, 2020, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors and were assigned and/or worked routes primarily or exclusively within
`
`Virginia and who were subject to improper wage deductions by Defendant; or
`
`c) During any time since July 1, 2021, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors and were assigned and/or worked routes primarily or exclusively within
`
`Virginia and who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without receiving overtime
`
`compensation.
`
`51. On information and belief, there is near total overlap in the classes referenced
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 10
`
`above, as Plaintiff and all others similarly situated all were made to assent to the same
`
`Consignment Agreement, the same [mis]classification as an Independent Contractor, and the same
`
`demanding work requirements.
`
`B.
`
`52.
`
`Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Common Claims
`
`Certification of subclasses of current and former Consignees is the most efficient
`
`and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact which are common to the claims
`
`of the Class Representative and the proposed subclasses. Conversely, proceeding on an individual
`
`basis will require the filing of potentially scores of duplicative individual suits which will waste
`
`judicial time and resources and create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of common
`
`issues.
`
`C.
`
`53.
`
`Numerosity and Impracticality of Joinder
`
`The subclasses which the Class Representatives seek to represent are so numerous
`
`that joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, the putative subclasses during the liability
`
`periods number over 50 current and former Consignees who have been misclassified and
`
`paid/treated as independent contractors by the Defendant, and who were subject to underpayment
`
`of regular and overtime wages.
`
`D.
`
`Common Questions of Law and Fact
`
`54. Defendant’s use of Consignees and the propriety of its classification of Consignees
`
`present common issues of fact in this matter. Moreover, because Consignees are all made to sign
`
`the same boilerplate contracts and agreements, the challenged pay and classification practices
`
`apply uniformly and present identical questions of law and fact with respect to the Class
`
`Representative and those whom he seeks to represent.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 11
`
`E.
`
`55.
`
`Typicality of Claims and Relief Sought
`
`The claims of the Class Representative are typical of those of the class members as
`
`a whole in that their claims are based on the same contract and business and compensation
`
`practices. The relief sought by the Class Representative for unpaid wages and misclassification
`
`compensation is also typical of the relief which is sought on behalf of the proposed subclasses.
`
`F.
`
`56.
`
`Adequacy of Representation
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate class representative for all subclasses. His interests are co-
`
`extensive with those of the members of the proposed subclasses he seeks to represent.
`
`Additionally, there is substantial, perhaps complete, overlap amongst the membership of the
`
`subclasses. Plaintiff has knowledge of the Consignment Agreement as well as an intimate
`
`knowledge of the Consignee position. He is committed to being a representative of the subclasses,
`
`and has retained counsel experienced in prosecuting class action employment cases to protect the
`
`interests of the class.
`
`G.
`
`57.
`
`Rule 23(B)(3) Requirements
`
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only
`
`individual members because the basis of the claims herein is the common application of the
`
`Consignment Agreement, as well as Defendant’s practice of treating its Consignees as independent
`
`contractors. Such policies and practices are applicable to all putative subclass members.
`
`58. A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the
`
`controversy because other methods would involve the filing of numerous individual claims that
`
`are based on the same centralized scheduling and compensation facts and the same legal issues
`
`regarding same. Numerous individual cases similar to Plaintiff’s would clog the Court’s docket
`
`and waste judicial time and resources. Moreover, multiple individual cases based on the same legal
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 12
`
`issue(s) could lead to inconsistent or varying adjudications of the same issue(s).
`
`59.
`
`The putative subclass members do not have a substantial interest in individually
`
`controlling a separate action because any such claim would be based on the same centralized
`
`contractual compensation practices and their recovery in either an individual or class action will
`
`be based on the amount of wages, overtime compensation, or other damages that each Plaintiff has
`
`been denied by Defendant.
`
`60.
`
`The Class Representative and counsel are not aware of any other litigation
`
`concerning the controversy that has already begun by proposed subclass members within the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`61.
`
`It is desirable to concentrate the claims in this forum because the employment
`
`practices complained with respect to the Class Representative occurred in this forum.
`
`62.
`
`The Class Representative and counsel do not foresee any substantial difficulties in
`
`managing a class action and counsel is experienced in managing class action litigation in this
`
`forum.
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
`(Collective Action)
`
`This count arises from Defendant’s violation of the FLSA by failing to pay overtime
`
`63.
`
`to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members when they worked over 40 hours in individual
`
`workweeks.
`
`64.
`
`The Collective Action Members were not exempt from the overtime provisions of
`
`the FLSA.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are/were directed by Defendant to work, and
`
`did work, over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 13
`
`66. Defendant paid Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, on commissions only and
`
`did not pay them overtime compensation.
`
`67. Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime to Plaintiff, and others
`
`similarly situated, at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay when they worked over 40
`
`hours in one or more individual workweeks.
`
`68. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons one-and-
`
`one-half times their regular rate for all time worked over 40 hours in a workweek was willful.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
`(Collective Action)
`
`The FLSA requires that employees be paid no less than $7.25 an hour on an
`
`69.
`
`unconditional and free and clear basis.
`
`70.
`
`Because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors, they were made to expend out-of-pocket costs that were for Defendant’s benefit and
`
`absorb various Defendant mandated deductions. Taken together, these expenditures and
`
`deductions meant that in some weeks, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, earned less than the
`
`minimum wage.
`
`71. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons a minimum
`
`wage was willful.
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`Violation of Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:7
`(State Law Misclassification Class Action)
`
`72. Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:7 permits misclassified workers to bring an action for
`
`damages against violating employers.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, performed services for Defendant for
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 14
`
`renumeration.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors despite not meeting the “Internal Revenue Service guidelines” for evaluating
`
`independent contractor status.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are entitled to damages caused by such
`
`misclassification, including wages, salary, employment benefits, including expenses incurred by
`
`the employee that would otherwise have been covered by insurance, and impermissible
`
`chargebacks or deductions or other compensation lost, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`incurred in bringing this action.
`
`COUNT IV
`Violation of Va. Code § 40.1-29.2
`(Virginia Overtime Wage Act Class Action)
`
`The Defendant has knowingly violated the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, Va. Code
`
`76.
`
`§ 40.1-29.2, by failing to pay overtime to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members when they
`
`worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, were not exempt from the overtime
`
`provisions of Va. Code § 40.1-29.2.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are/were directed by Defendant to work, and
`
`did work, over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.
`
`79. Defendant paid Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, on commissions only and
`
`did not pay them overtime compensation.
`
`80. Defendant violated Va. Code § 40.1-29.2 by failing to pay overtime to Plaintiff,
`
`and others similarly situated, at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay when they worked
`
`over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID# 15
`
`81. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons one-and-
`
`one-half times their regular rate for all time worked over 40 hours in a workweek was willful or
`
`knowing.
`
`82.
`
`Pursuant to Va. Code §§ 40.1-29(J) and 40.1-29.2, Plaintiff and others similarly
`
`situated are entitled to recover payment of their unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount of
`
`liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. Further, Defendant’s violation was
`
`a “knowing” one thus entitling Plaintiff and others similarly situated to recovery of triple damages.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for all violations alleged herein commencing July 1,
`
`2021, and ongoing.
`
`COUNT V
`Violation of Va. Code § 40.1-29
`(Unpaid Wages Class Action)
`
`84.
`
`The Defendant has knowingly violated Va. Code § 40.1-29 by failing to pay
`
`Plaintiffs the regular wages for necessary and compensable time spent working for Defendant.
`
`85.
`
`Because Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were misclassified as independent
`
`contractors, they were made to expend out-of-pocket costs that were for Defendant’s benefit and
`
`absorb various Defendant mandated deductions. These expenditures and deductions represent
`
`improper reductions in the wages of the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated.
`
`86.
`
` Pursuant to Va. Code § 40.1-29(J), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their unpaid
`
`and/or deducted wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees. Further, Defendant’s violation was a “knowing” one thus entitling Plaintiffs to
`
`recovery of triple damages.
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for all violations alleged herein commencing July 1,
`
`2020, and ongoing.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID# 16
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Collective and/or Class Action
`
`Members, requests the following relief against Defendant as follows:
`
`A.
`
`That the Court conditionally certify this action as a Collective Action under the
`
`FLSA and order that Court approved notice be issued to putative collective members;
`
`B.
`
`All unpaid overtime and minimum wages due to Plaintiff and the Collective Action
`
`Members;
`
`C.
`
`Liquidated damages equal
`
`to
`
`the unpaid overtime and minimum wage
`
`compensation due to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members;
`
`D.
`
`That the Court certify this action as a Class Action Pursuant to Rule 23 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
`
`E.
`
`All unpaid wages and overtime damages due to Plaintiff and members of the State
`
`Law Class Action claims;
`
`F.
`
`All unpaid wages, salary, or benefits due as result of Defendant’s misclassification
`
`scheme;
`
`G.
`
`Liquidated damages equal
`
`to
`
`the unpaid overtime and/or unpaid wage
`
`compensation due under Va. Code § 40.1-29(J) and 40.1-29.2;
`
`H.
`
`Treble damages under Va. Code § 40.1-29(J) for all claims where such relief is
`
`available;
`
`I.
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit
`
`pursuant to the FLSA and/or Virginia law; and
`
`J.
`
`
`
`
`
`Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00097-HEH Document 1 Filed 02/17/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID# 17
`
`Jury Demand
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Chad Hill
`Plaintiff
`
`By:_____/s/ Zev H. Antell_____________
`Harris D. Butler, III, (VSB No. 26483)
`Craig Juraj Curwood (VSB No. 43975)
`Zev H. Antell (VSB No. 74634)
`Paul M. Falabella (VSB No. 81199)
`Butler Curwood, PLC
`140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
`Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 648-4848
`Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
`harris@butlercurwood.com
`craig@butlercurwood.com
`zev@butlercurwood.com
`paul@butlercurwood.com
`
`
`Attorneys for the Plaintiff, all subclasses, and
`others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`