Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE HIGGINS, for herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Stephanie Higgins ( Plaintiff ), by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby makes the following allegations against Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. ( Defendant ) concerning her acts and status upon her actual knowledge and concerning all other matters upon information, belief, and the investigation of her counsel: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is responsible for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ( FLSA ) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 P.S , et seq. ( PMWA ) by knowingly classifying its home health Clinicians as overtime exempt and knowingly failing to pay them any overtime premium wages for the overtime work they performed despite knowing they were paid pursuant to a hybrid wage scheme that is plainly inconsistent with their classification as overtime exempt. 2. Plaintiff brings her FLSA claim on a collective basis pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) for all people who worked as home health Clinicians for Defendant at any point during the maximum limitations period (the FLSA class ). 3. Plaintiff brings her PMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for all Pennsylvania residents who worked as home health Clinicians for Defendant at any point

2 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 18 during the maximum limitations period (the PMWA class ). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), which provides that claims under the FLSA: may be maintained against any employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. 5. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s Pennsylvania claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C because this claim arises from the same occurrence or transaction as Plaintiff s FLSA claim and is so related to this claim as to form part of the same case or controversy. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), because Plaintiff resides in this District, Plaintiff worked for Defendant in this District, Plaintiff suffered the losses at issue in this District, Defendant has significant business contacts in this District, Defendant is alleged to have engaged in the wrongful conduct at issue in this District and actions and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff s claims occurred in this District. THE PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Stephanie Higgins is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides in Luzerne County, PA. From September 4, 2012 to September 27, 2016, Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse for Defendant, performing home health care services in this District. Defendant paid Plaintiff on a combined per-visit / hourly basis that did not include the payment of any overtime premium wages for any of the work she performed beyond forty hours in any workweek. As a result, Plaintiff is personally familiar with, and was personally affected by, the policies and practices described in this Complaint. 2

3 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a part of this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). See Consent Form (Exhibit A). 10. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. ( Defendant ) is a limited liability corporation with its headquarters located at 290 Chester Avenue in Moorestown, N.J. Defendant s core business involves the provision of home health care services in at least 22 states, including Pennsylvania. As discussed more fully below, Defendant is directly responsible for the operation of its home health care business, and for the policies, practices, and conduct at issue in this case. BACKGROUND FACTS 11. This action arises out of Defendant s systematic, company-wide wrongful classification of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated home health Clinicians as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and PMWA. The affected employees worked for Defendant as Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists, Medical Social Workers and in other similarly-designated skilled care positions (collectively Clinicians ), whose primary duties involved providing health care services to patients in their homes. 12. For an employer to properly designate an employee as exempt from statutory overtime compensation requirements, it must affirmatively establish that the employee performs job duties that meet one of the statutorily-defined exemptions and that the employee is paid on either a salary-basis or a fee-basis. 13. Plaintiff s claims are based on Defendant s uniform determination to pay all of its Clinicians pursuant to a hybrid pay scheme that included fixed, per-visit payments for some work, hourly payments for other work and no compensation at all for other required tasks. 14. Defendant paid Plaintiff and its other Clinicians on a productivity point system for the time they spent providing care and treatment in patients homes. This system was based 3

4 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 18 on a matrix that, for example, attributed one point for a routine home visit, one point for an evaluation visit, 1½ points for a recertification visit or a resumption of care visit, and two points for a start-of-care visit. At the time of her separation from Defendant, Plaintiff earned $41.75 for each productivity point she accumulated. 15. Defendant paid Plaintiff and its other Clinicians on an hourly basis for the time they spent in staff meetings, professional training sessions, new employee orientation program, inoffice training and orientation meetings, shadowing with one of our experienced clinicians and on in-service educational programs. Plaintiff was paid about $25.00 per hour for these tasks. 16. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and its other Clinicians for a wide array of other work-related tasks they were required to perform on a regular basis, including: preparing for patient visits, communicating with patients, physicians and case managers about scheduling, patient-care and logistical matters, coordinating patient care with other providers, travelling between patients homes, documenting information from patient visits ( charting ), or ordering, organizing and retrieving equipment and supplies used during their home visits. 17. Defendant s hybrid pay scheme does not meet either the salary-basis requirement or the fee-basis requirement, meaning that Defendant had no valid basis to classify Plaintiff, or any other Clinician, as overtime exempt and, therefore, wrongly deprived these employees of legally-required overtime wages. 18. Defendant routinely suffered and permitted Plaintiff and its other Clinicians to spend more than forty hours per workweek on the various work-related tasks described above. 19. Defendant did not maintain accurate contemporaneous records of all the hours Plaintiff and its other Clinicians worked, and did not require any Clinician, including Plaintiff, to maintain such records. 4

5 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 5 of Defendant knew that Plaintiff and its other Clinicians were working more than 40 hours per week, because it assigned the work they performed; it tracked their performance of this work; and it required all Clinicians to complete extensive paperwork detailing their work and when it was completed. 21. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and its other Clinicians should have been classified as non-exempt employees because it was responsible for implementing and managing the compensation system that paid them on a per-visit basis for certain work, on an hourly basis for other work and no wages at all for other required tasks. FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATONS 22. Plaintiff brings this claim on a collective basis pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) for all people who worked as home health Clinicians for Defendant at any point during the maximum limitations period (the FLSA class ). 23. Plaintiff belongs to the FLSA class she seeks to represent, because: a. She worked as a home health Clinician for Defendant during the relevant period and had similar job duties to the other class members; b. She received the same training from Defendant and was required to comply with the same wage and hour policies; c. Defendant classified her as exempt from statutory overtime compensation requirements; d. Plaintiff s wages were calculated and paid based on Defendant s hybrid pay scheme that included fixed, per-visit payments for some work, hourly payments for other work, and no compensation at all for other required tasks; e. Defendant routinely suffered and permitted Plaintiff to work more than forty hours per workweek; 5

6 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 6 of 18 f. Defendant did not maintain accurate contemporaneous records of all the hours Plaintiff worked, and did not require any Clinician, including Plaintiff to maintain such records; g. Defendant knew Plaintiff was working more than 40 hours per week, because it assigned the work she performed, tracked her performance of this work and required her to complete extensive paperwork detailing her work and when it was completed; and h. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any overtime premium wages for any of the work she performed beyond forty hours in any workweek. 24. Although Plaintiff and the FLSA class members may have worked in different states or under different managers, this action may be properly maintained as a collective action because, among other things: a. They worked under the same material terms and conditions of employment; b. They were all classified as exempt from statutory overtime wage requirements; c. They performed the same job duties and had the same job-related responsibilities; d. They received common training about their employment and the wage and hour policies and practices at issue here; e. they were governed by the same timekeeping policies, practices and systems; f. they were governed by the same compensation policies, practices and systems; 6

7 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 7 of 18 g. they were governed by the same policies, practices and systems concerning work hours and the performance of their work; and h. they were governed by the same policies, practices and systems concerning overtime hours and wages. 25. Plaintiff and the FLSA class members do not meet any test for exemption under the FLSA. 26. Plaintiff estimates that the FLSA class, including both current and former employees over the relevant period, will include thousands of members. The precise number of FLSA class members will be readily available from Defendant s personnel, scheduling, time and payroll records, and from input received from the Class members as part of the notice and optin process provided by 29 U.S.C. 216(b). PENNSYLVANIA CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 27. Plaintiff brings her PMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for all Pennsylvania residents who worked as home health Clinicians for Defendant at any point during the maximum limitations period (the PMWA class ). 28. Plaintiff belongs to the Class she seeks to represent because she: a. Is a resident of Pennsylvania; a. Worked under the same material terms and conditions of employment as the PMWA class members; b. Was classified as exempt from statutory overtime wage requirements like the PMWA class members; c. Performed the same job duties and had the same job-related responsibilities as the PMWA class members; 7

8 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 8 of 18 d. Received the same training about her employment and the wage and hour policies and practices at issue here as the PMWA class members; e. Was governed by the same timekeeping policies, practices and systems as the PMWA class members; f. Was governed by the same compensation policies, practices and systems as the PMWA class members; g. Was governed by the same policies, practices and systems concerning work hours and the performance of their work as the PMWA class members; and h. Was governed by the same policies, practices and systems concerning overtime hours and wages as the PMWA class members. 29. Plaintiff s claims for violation of the PMWA may be maintained as a class action because the putative class members are so numerous that their joinder would be impracticable. Over the relevant period, Defendant is believed to have employed at least several hundred Clinicians in Pennsylvania. The exact number of class members will be determined from Defendant s payroll records through the discovery process. 30. This action may be properly maintained as a class action because there are material questions of law or fact common to the PMWA class members that predominate over any individual issues, including: a. Whether the PMWA class members were classified as exempt from statutory overtime requirements; b. Whether the PMWA class members routinely spent more than forty hours per workweek on work-related tasks; 8

9 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 9 of 18 c. Whether the PMWA class members were paid pursuant to a hybrid pay scheme that included fixed, per-visit payments for some work, hourly payments for other work, and no compensation at all for other required tasks; d. Whether Defendant maintained accurate contemporaneous records of all the hours the PMWA class members worked or required them to maintain such records; e. Whether Defendant s hybrid pay scheme meets either the salarybasis requirement or the fee-basis requirement; f. Whether the PMWA class members should have been properly classified as non-exempt from statutory overtime requirements; g. Whether Defendant s hybrid pay scheme wrongly deprived the PMWA class members of legally-required overtime wages; h. whether the PMWA class members can state a claim under the PMWA for unpaid overtime work; i. whether the PMWA class members are entitled to compensatory damages, interest, or attorneys fees and costs on their PMWA claim; and j. Whether Defendant raises defenses common to all PMWA class members. 31. This action may be properly maintained as a class action because Plaintiff s PMWA claim is typical of the claims belonging to the PMWA class members in that they are similarlysituated employees who performed similar work under similar terms, conditions, policies and practices and, as a result, have been similarly harmed. 32. This action may be properly maintained as a class action because Plaintiff will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the PMWA class members as follows: 9

10 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 10 of 18 a. there is no apparent conflict of interest between Plaintiff and the PMWA class members; b. Plaintiff s attorneys have significant experience in the litigation of complex civil and class action matters in this Court, and will adequately represent the interests of the PMWA class members; and c. Plaintiff has access to adequate financial resources to assure that the interests of the PMWA class members will not be harmed because, consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Plaintiff s counsel have agreed to advance the costs and expenses of this litigation contingent upon the outcome of the case. 33. This action may be properly maintained as a class action because it will provide a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the issues presented by this controversy as follows: a. common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, as Plaintiff seeks to remedy a common legal grievance, namely Defendant s failure to pay overtime wages owed to similarlysituated employees who worked as a Clinician providing home health care services in Pennsylvania; b. no difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this litigation as a class action, given that Defendant s business records will assist in identifying the PMWA class members and verifying the amount of their claims; c. this forum is particularly appropriate for adjudicating these claims as this Court has significant experience with class action litigation; and 10

11 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 11 of 18 d. the claims addressed in this Complaint are not too small to justify the expenses of class-wide litigation, nor are they likely to be so substantial as to require the litigation of individual claims. 34. Allowing Plaintiff s Pennsylvania wage law claims to proceed as a class action will be superior to requiring individual adjudications of each PMWA class member s claim, since requiring hundreds of similarly-situated employees to file and litigate individual wage claims will unavoidably cause an undue burden on Defendant, its employees and this Court. forth herein. COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE FLSA (for the proposed multi-state collective) 35. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as though fully set 36. Defendant is an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. 203(d). 37. The wages Defendant paid to Plaintiff and the FLSA class members are wages as defined by 29 U.S.C. 203(m). 38. Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A). 203(e)(1). 39. Plaintiff and the FLSA class members are employees as defined by 29 U.S.C. 40. Plaintiff and the FLSA class members are similarly-situated individuals within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 216(b) U.S.C. 207(a)(1) provides that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, non-exempt employees must be paid an overtime premium rate, equal to at least 1½ times their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 11

12 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 12 of U.S.C. 211(c) expressly requires employers to maintain accurate time records of the work their employees perform U.S.C. 216(b) expressly allows private plaintiffs to bring collective actions to enforce an employers failure to comply with its requirements. 44. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant was obligated to comply with the FLSA s requirements, Plaintiff and the FLSA class members were covered employees entitled to the FLSA s protections, and Plaintiff and the FLSA class members were not exempt from receiving wages required by the FLSA for any reason. 45. Defendant violated the FLSA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions by knowingly classifying Plaintiff and the FLSA class members as exempt from the FLSA s overtime pay provision despite knowing that its hybrid wage scheme does not meet either the salary-basis requirement or the fee-basis requirement. 46. Defendant violated the FLSA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the FLSA class members to regularly work more than 40 hours per week without ensuring they were paid at an overtime premium rate for all hours beyond Defendant violated the FLSA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions by knowingly failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA class members any wages for a wide array of work-related tasks they were required to regularly perform, including: preparing for patient visits; communicating with patients, physicians and case managers about scheduling, patient-care and logistical matters; coordinating patient care with other providers; travelling between patients homes; documenting information from patient visits ( charting ); and ordering, organizing, or retrieving equipment and supplies to be used during their home visits. 12

13 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 13 of Defendant violated the FLSA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions by knowingly failing to create or maintain accurate records of the time Plaintiff and the FLSA class members worked. 49. Plaintiff and the FLSA class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct described here, because they have been deprived of overtime wages owed for work they performed from which Defendant derived a direct and substantial benefit. 50. Defendant has no good faith justification or defense for the conduct detailed above, or for failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA class members all wages mandated by the FLSA. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for an Order: a. Approving this matter to proceed as a collective action with respect to Count I; b. Appointing Stephan Zouras LLP to serve as Class Counsel; c. Requiring Defendant to provide the names and current (or best known) mailing and addresses of all FLSA class members; d. Authorizing Class Counsel to issue a notice informing the FLSA class members that this action has been filed, of the nature of the action, and of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit; e. Finding that Defendant willfully violated the applicable provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay all required overtime wages to Plaintiff and the FLSA class members; f. Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the FLSA class members on Count I; 13

14 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 14 of 18 determined; g. Awarding all available compensatory damages in an amount to be h. Awarding liquidated damages in an amount to be determined; i. Awarding pre-judgment interest on all compensatory damages due; j. Awarding a reasonable attorney s fee and reimbursement of all costs and expenses incurred in litigating this action; k. Awarding equitable and injunctive relief precluding the continuation of the policies and practices pled in this Complaint; proper; forth herein. 3(d). 3(h). l. Awarding any further relief the Court deems just, necessary and m. Granting leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or any other method approved by the Court; and n. Maintaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure Defendant s compliance with the foregoing. COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE PMWA (for the Pennsylvania class) 51. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as though fully set 52. The unpaid wages at issue in this litigation are Wages as defined by MWA 53. Defendant is an Employer as defined in MWA 3(g). 54. Plaintiff and the PMWA class members are Employees as defined by MWA 14

15 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 15 of MWA 4(a.1) requires an employer to pay its employees at least the federal minimum wage rate for all hours worked. 56. MWA 4(c) and the applicable enabling Regulations found at 34 Pa. Code state that employees shall be paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate not less than 1½ times their regular rate of pay. 57. MWA 8 requires employers to keep a true and accurate record of the hours worked by each employee. 58. MWA 13 expressly allows private plaintiffs to bring a civil action to enforce an employers failure to comply with the MWA s requirements. 59. MWA 13 expressly provides that an agreement between the employer and employee to work for less than the required minimum wage is not a defense to an action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages. 60. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant was obligated to comply with the PMWA s requirements, Plaintiff and the PMWA class members were covered employees entitled to the PMWA s protections, and Plaintiff and the PMWA class members were not exempt from receiving wages required by the PMWA for any reason. 61. Defendant violated the PMWA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable PMWA provisions by knowingly classifying Plaintiff and the PMWA class members as exempt from the PMWA s overtime pay provision despite knowing that its hybrid wage scheme does not meet either the salary-basis requirement or the fee-basis requirement. 62. Defendant violated the PMWA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable PMWA provisions by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the PMWA class members to regularly work more than 40 hours per week without ensuring they were paid at an overtime premium rate for all hours beyond

16 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 16 of Defendant violated the PMWA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable PMWA provisions by knowingly failing to pay Plaintiff and the PMWA class members any wages for a wide array of work-related tasks they were required to regularly perform, including: preparing for patient visits; communicating with patients, physicians and case managers about scheduling, patient-care and logistical matters; coordinating patient care with other providers; travelling between patients homes; documenting information from patient visits ( charting ); and ordering, organizing, or retrieving equipment and supplies to be used during their home visits. 64. Defendant violated the PMWA and acted with reckless disregard of clearly applicable PMWA provisions by knowingly failing to create or maintain accurate records of the time Plaintiff and the PMWA class members worked. 65. Plaintiff and the PMWA class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct described here, because they have been deprived of wages owed for work they performed from which Defendant derived a direct and substantial benefit. 66. Defendant has no good faith justification or defense for the conduct detailed above, or for failing to pay Plaintiff and the PMWA class members all wages mandated by the PMWA. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for an Order: a. Certifying this matter to proceed as a class action with respect to Count II; b. Appointing Stephan Zouras LLP to serve as Class Counsel; c. Approving Plaintiff as an adequate Class representative; 16

17 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 17 of 18 d. Requiring Defendant to provide the names and current (or best known) mailing and addresses of all PMWA class members; e. Authorizing appropriate notice to the PMWA class members; f. Finding that Defendant willfully violated the applicable provisions of the PMWA by failing to pay all required overtime wages to Plaintiff and the PMWA class members; g. Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the PMWA class members on Count II; h. Awarding all available compensatory damages in an amount to be determined; i. Awarding pre-judgment interest on all compensatory damages due; j. Awarding a reasonable attorney s fee and reimbursement of all costs and expenses incurred in litigating this action; k. Awarding equitable and injunctive relief precluding the continuation of the policies and practices pled in this Complaint; l. Awarding any further relief the Court deems just, necessary and proper; and m. Maintaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure Defendant s compliance with the foregoing. 17

18 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 18 of 18 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: November 30, 2016 /s/ David J. Cohen David J. Cohen STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA (215) James B. Zouras (pro hac forthcoming) Ryan F. Stephan (pro hac forthcoming) Teresa M. Becvar (pro hac forthcoming) STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, Illinois f Attorneys for Plaintiff 18

19 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1-1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 1 CONSENT TO BECOME PARTY PLAINTIFF Higgins, et al v. Bayada Home Health Care United States District Court, Eastern District ofpennsylvania Complete and Mail, Fax or to: ATTN: BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE UNPAID OVERTIME ACTION Stephan Zouras, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, Illinois Fax to: (312) to: lawyers@stephanzouras.eom By signing below, I state that I have been employed by Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., ("Bayada"), or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates ("Defendants"), as a Registered Nurse, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Speech Pathologist or other similarly titled position within the past three (3) years and that I hereby consent to join this lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages based on Defendants' alleged violations ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et. seq. I hereby designate the law firm Stephan Zouras, LLP, to represent purposes of this action. me for all I also designate the Class Representative as my agent to make decisions on my behalf concerning this lawsuit, the method and manner of conducting the lawsuit, the entering of an agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel concerning attorneys' fees and costs, and all other matters pertaining to this lawsuit. Date Signatu e a S\-t Onan( Print Ntme LS *Statute oflimitations concerns mandate that you return this form as soon as possible to preserve your rights.

20 Case 3:16-cv MEM Document 1-2 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 1 JS 44 (Rm. 08'16) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court This Form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required For the use of the Clerk ofcourt for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheel (SEE MSTRUCTIONS ON NhAT PA6k OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Stephanie Higgins Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Luzeme Co., PA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Burlington Co., N.J. (EXCEPT IN (1.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN US. PLAINTIFF ('ASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) David J. Cohen, Stephan Zouras LLP 604 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA (215) Attorneys (IfKnown) N/A II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" m One Hoz Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an -X" in One BoxfarPlaintiff (For Dlversii), Cases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) CI l U.S. Govenunent Mt 3 Federal Question PTF DEF FEE DEE Plaintiff (US. (Jovernment Not a Party) Citizen erthis State Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 El 4 of Business In This State El 2 U.S Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State Incorporated and Principal Place _IC 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship ofpartnes to hem Ill) of Business In Another State FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Citizen or Subject ofa El 3 El 3 Foreign Nation 7 6 CP 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an -.A- in One Box Only) Click here for i.!.2 I i.:,, :::.Hk :-I s. 1 CONTRACT TORTS FOREEITHREMENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES I in 110 Insurance PERSONAL LNJURY PERSONAL INJURY D 625 Drug Related Seizure El 422 Appeal 2811SC 158 EI 375 False Clairns Act Marine Airplane Personal Injury of Property 21 USC Withdrawal Qui Tam (31 USC O 130 Miller Act Airplane Product Product Liability Other 28 USC (a)) O 140 Negotiable Instrument Liabi lity Health Care/ State Reapportionment O 150 Recovery of Overpayment Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS Antitnist & Enforcement ofludgmeni Slander Personal Injury Copyrights Banks and Banking El 151 Medicare Act CI 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability CI 830 Patent CI 450 Commerce O 152 Rccovety of Defaulted Liabi lity Asbestos Personal Trademark Deportation Student Loans Marine Injury Product El 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL stoiarry Cormpt Organizations O 153 Recovery ofoverpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 6 7 HI Fair Labor Standards HIA (139511) Consumer Credit of Veteran's Benefits Motor Vehicle Other Fraud Act Black Lung (923) Cl 490 Cable/Sat TV Stockholders' Suits CI 355 Motor Vehicle Truth in Lending El 720 Labor/Management DIWC/D1WW (405(g)) Securities/Commodities! O 190 Other Contract Product Liability Other Personal Relations SSID Title XVI Exchange O 195 Contract Product Liability El 360 Other Personal Property Damage Railway Labor Act ri 865 RSI (405(g)) Other Statutory Actions ni 196 Franchise Injury Properry Damage CI 751 Family and Medical Agricultural Acts D 362 Personal Injury Product Liability Leave Act CI 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Other Labor Litigation Freedom of Information i REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act fl 210 Land Condemnation CI 440 Other Cis il Rights Habeas Corpas: Income Security Act CI 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff CI 896 Arbitration Foreclosure Voting Alien Detainee or Defendant) AdministrativeProcedure El 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment Cl 442 Employment Motions to Vacate CI 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of Torts to Land Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision Tort Product Liability Accommodations General Constitutionality of 1:1 290 All Other Real Property CI 445 Amer. iv/disabilities El 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: Naturalization Application Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other CI 465 Other Immigration Other Civil Rights Actions Education Prison Condition CI 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an X" in One Box Only) X I Original El 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation Litigation (speeit) Transfer Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not the jurisdictional staiuteli unlas diverxity): Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description ofcause: Employee misclassification and failure to pay overtime premium wages VII. REQUESTED IN 31 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: X Yes 0 No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See Instructions): JUDGE._DATE SIGNATURE OF ATLORNEY OE RECO 11/ A DOCKET NUMBER RECEIPT II AMOUNT APPLYING 1FP JUDGE MAG. RIDGE

21 ClassAction.org This complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post: Bayada Home Health Care Knocked with Hybrid Wage Scheme Lawsuit