FLSA Overtime Complaint Lawsuit

17 Sep 2014

FLSA Overtime Complaint Lawsuit

Posted By :
Comments : 0

5011477848_84669d30ff_z

FLSA Overtime Complaint

1. The Plaintiff, Tom Watkins, sues Defendant, Toy Palace, Inc., for failing to pay all overtime due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

2. Plaintiff resides in Alachua County, Florida.

3. Defendant is a Florida corporation that conducts business in, among other counties, Alachua County, Florida.

4. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from December 6, 2010 through September 6, 2013.

5. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff all overtime due from July 15, 2012 through November 3, 2012.

6. Plaintiff sues Defendant pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the limited period of time identified in paragraph five.

7. Defendant paid Plaintiff $16.68 per hour during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

8. Plaintiffs overtime rate for the period of time identified in paragraph five was $25.02 per hour.

9. Plaintiff was entitled to receive $25.02 per hour for all horn’s worked over forty during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

10. Defendant in 2011 had annual gross volume of sales made or business done in excess of $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated).

11. Defendant in 2012 had annual gross volume of sales made or business done in excess of $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated).

12. Defendant employs, and at all times Plaintiff worked for Defendant employed, employees that handle goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce.

13. Defendant was Plaintiffs employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

14. Plaintiff was entitled to receive overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) for all hours worked over forty during a week in the period of time identified in paragraph five.

15. Defendant, at all times material, was an enterprise as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

16. Defendant, at all times material, was an enterprise engaged in commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).

17. Plaintiff worked as a toy maker for Defendant in Gainesville, Florida.

18. Plaintiff had calls after his formal schedule during the period identified in paragraph five.

19. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph eighteen.

20. Plaintiff received emails after his formal schedule during the period identified in paragraph five.

21. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph twenty.

22. Plaintiff received work phone calls after his formal schedule during the period identified in paragraph five.

23. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph twentytwo.

24. Plaintiff received work text messages after his formal schedule during the period identified in paragraph five.

25. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph twentyfour.

26. Plaintiff responded to work phone calls during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

27. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph twentysix.

28. Plaintiff responded to work emails during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

29. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph twentyeight.

30. Plaintiff responded to work text messages during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

31. Plaintiff was not paid for the time identified in paragraph thirty.

32. Plaintiff regularly worked at home during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

33. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff was working from home without receiving overtime pay.

34. Tom Manio was Plaintiffs supervisor during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

35. Plaintiff complained to Defendant about working without pay.

36. Defendant told Plaintiff that it expected that he would work off-the-clock without compensation during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

37. Plaintiff routinely worked on weekends during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

38. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for work completed on weekends during the period identified in paragraph five.

39. Defendant willfully violated the FLSA.

40. Defendant did not rely upon legal advice in permitting Plaintiff to work off-the-clock during the period of time identified in paragraph five without paying him for the time.

41. Defendant did not rely upon any Department of Labor opinion letter in permitting Plaintiff to work off-the-clock during the period of time identified in paragraph five without paying him for the time.

42. Defendant did not rely upon any case law in permitting Plaintiff to work off-the-clock during the period of time identified in paragraph five without paying him for the time.

43. Defendant did not rely upon any regulation in permitting Plaintiff to work off-the-clock during the period of time identified in paragraph five without paying him for the time.

44. Defendant did not rely upon any statute in permitting Plaintiff to work off*the-clock during the period of time identified in paragraph five without paying him for the time.

45. If Plaintiff recovers any overtime alleged in paragraph five he is entitled to an equal amount of liquidated damages.

46. Defendant failed to keep accurate time records for all hours Plaintiff worked during the period of time identified in paragraph five.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, unpaid overtime from July 15, 2012 through November 3, 2012, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

Summary
FLSA Overtime Complaint Lawsuit
Article Name
FLSA Overtime Complaint Lawsuit
Description
This is a sample FLSA overtime complaint. These sorts of cases are extremely difficult, and legal representation is required.
Author

About the Author:

Massey & Duffy has existed since October, 2003. We focus exclusively on civil litigation, including wrongful death, overtime cases, car and trucking accidents, insurance claims, breach of contract, general employment law, and serious personal injury lawsuits.