IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176

Similar documents
Case 3:12-cv M Document 6 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:13-cv B Document 1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1

Case 5:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

Case 3:10-cv P-BN Document 76 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID 995

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 13 U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT

similarly situated, seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked, while employed by Bab.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) )

Case: 3:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/23/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon.

Case 3:10-cv HEH Document 1 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 7

CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. v. No. 1:18-cv- COMPLAINT COLLECTIVE ACTION

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

2:17-cv DCN Date Filed 09/10/17 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 9

3:14-cv JFA Date Filed 10/03/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/15/17 Page 1 of 7

Case: 3:15-cv jdp Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2:14-cv DCN Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

4:18-cv RBH Date Filed 05/24/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Case: 4:18-cv JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/09/18 1 of 8. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:18-cv EJD Document 31 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9

Case: 3:14-cv Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/31/14 1 of 18. PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 15-CV-1588

SECOND AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/20/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action 1:16-cv-1080

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 18

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffand the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/20/17 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CASE NO.:

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:16-cv MJW Document 1 Filed 02/09/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO

thejasminebrand.com SO SO DEF PRODUCTIONS, INC., thejasminebrand.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT v. (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class.

they are so related in this action within such original jurisdiction that they form part (212) (212) (fax)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1. No.: Defendants.

P H I L L I P S DAYES

Case 1:17-cv AJN Document 17 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 4:18-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/21/18 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendants.

2:18-cv DCN Date Filed 01/23/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

6:15-cv MGL Date Filed 10/13/15 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:16-cv LDW-SIL Document 1 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 19. No. 16-cv-6584

Case 1:09-cv CAP Document 1 Filed 12/21/2009 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:19-cv BPG Document 1 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARLYAND

& Associates, P.C., upon their knowledge and belief, and as against Senator Construction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 2:16-cv ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/22/16 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 1

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA : : : : : : : : : COMPLAINT-COLLECTIVE ACTION

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiff proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and proposed Class

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION v. PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 216(b)

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 22

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/27/16 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : : : FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:18-cv UJH-MHH Document 1 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION

JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 2. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 25

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 21

underpaid overtime compensation, and such other relief available by law. Plaintiffs, against INC.; ARLETE TURTURRO, jointly and severally,

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 20

Case: 1:17-cv MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/14/17 Page: 1 of 24 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case 9:17-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KUO, M.J. STATEME1IT. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants"), to recover damages for egregious violations. Telephone: U.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 23. Plaintiff,

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 22

Case 1:19-cv AJN Document 2 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Judge COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/09/11 Page 1 of 11

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FELICIA D. GRAY; individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176 SOLOMONEDWARDSGROUP, LLC a/k/a SOLOMON EDWARDS GROUP, LLC, Defendant. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COLLECTIVE ACTION TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: NOW COMES Felicia D. Gray, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and file this, her Plaintiff s Original Complaint Collective Action. I. SUMMARY This is a simple failure to pay overtime case. Defendant is a staffing firm. Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the putative class as Quality Analyst. For the past three years, Defendants have not paid Quality Analyst overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the putative class an hourly rate for each hour worked. The Plaintiff and the putative class would routinely work over forty hours in a workweek. The Defendant routinely would pay the Plaintiff and PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

the putative class at the Quality Analyst s regular rate instead of the Quality Analyst s overtime rate for the hours over forty in a workweek. The failure to pay the Plaintiff and the putative class at one and one half times the regular rate for house over forty in a work week is a plain, simple violation of the FLSA. For these reasons, Plaintiff seek, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and all other relief permitted. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has original jurisdiction to hear this complaint and to adjudicate the claims stated herein under 28 U.S.C. 1331, this action being brought under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ( FLSA ). Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. III. PARTIES 2. Defendant SolomonEdwardsGroup, LLC ( SolomonEdwards ) is a limited liability corporation. SolomonEdwards is an employer within the meaning of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(d), an enterprise within the meaning of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(r), and engaged in commerce within the meaning of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1). PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2

3. Plaintiff Felicia D. Gray is a resident of Texas and worked as a Senior Quality Analyst on a project in Charlotte, North Carolina. SolomonEdwards has been engaged in commerce as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 206-07. Ms. Gray s consent form is attached as part of Exhibit 1. 4. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees are individuals who were, or are, employed by Defendants as Quality Analysts in the past three years. The putative class has been engaged in commerce as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 206-07. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. During the past three years, Defendants paid Quality Analysts a regular hourly rate for all hours worked. 6. Quality Analysts are not exempt from the FLSA because they are not paid on an hourly basis and should be compensated for appropriate overtime. 7. During the last three years, Quality Analysts regularly worked in excess of forty hours in workweeks. 8. Quality Analysts were not paid on a salary basis because Quality Analysts were paid an hourly rate for the exact amount of hours they worked. 9. If a Quality Analyst worked less than forty hours in a week the Quality Analyst would be paid only for the hours he/she worked that week at his/her regular hourly rate. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3

10. Defendants failed to pay Quality Analysts one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over forty in a workweek. 11. Specifically, SolomonEdwards paid Quality Analysts their regular rate for each hour worked over forty in a workweek instead of one and one half times the regular rate. 12. These practices violate the provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. As a result of these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees suffered a loss of wages. 13. Defendants showed reckless disregard for the fact that their failure to pay their Quality Analysts appropriate overtime compensation was in violation of the law. 14. Upon information and belief, Quality Analysts have complained about not being paid overtime and were told that they could work and not be paid overtime or could quit. 15. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been satisfied. V. JURY DEMAND 16. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative class, exercises the right to a jury. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and all employees similarly situated who join in this action demand: PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4

1. Issuance of notice as soon as possible to all Quality Analysts who were employed by Defendants during any portion of the three years immediately preceding the filing of this action. Generally, this notice should inform them that this action has been filed, describe the nature of the action, and explain their right to opt into this lawsuit if they were not paid correctly for hours worked as Quality Analysts during any portion of the statutory period; 2. Judgment against Defendants for an amount equal to Plaintiff and the class unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rate for each hour worked over forty; 3. Judgment against Defendants that their violations of the FLSA were willful; 4. An equal amount to the wage damages as liquidated damages; 5. To the extent that liquidated damages are not awarded, an award of prejudgment interest; 6. All costs incurred and reasonable attorney s fees for prosecuting these claims; 7. Leave to add additional Plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, 7or any other method approved by the Court; 8. Leave to amend to add claims under applicable state laws; and 9. For such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert J. Wiley Robert J. Wiley Texas Bar No. 24013750 Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization Justin G. Manchester Texas Bar No. 24070207 ROB WILEY, P.C. 1825 Market Center Blvd., Suite 385 Dallas, Texas 75207 Telephone: (214) 528-6500 Facsimile: (214) 528-6511 rwiley@robwiley.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6