FLSA Overtime Complaint Lawsuit

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. The 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 an annual gross volume of sales made or business is done in excess of $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that is separately stated).

11. Defendant in 2012 had an annual gross volume of sales made or business is done in excess of $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that is 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 toymaker for Defendant in Gainesville, Florida.

18. Plaintiff had called 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 twenty-two.

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 twenty-four.

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 twenty-six.

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 twenty-eight.

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,

Share:

More Posts

The Law of Ladders

Injuries from ladders are very common during construction.  Often, these ladders are supplied by employers or homeowners in a faulty condition. In such cases, the

Send Us A Message

Massey & Duffy

Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. This is our approach to every case. Contact us today for a free consultation. 

Practice Areas