united states district court district of connecticut … · 2019-12-27 · hy’s livery service,...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MEHDI BELGADA, HORMOZ : CIVIL ACTION NO. AKHUNDZADEH, and ADANIEL : DZIEKAN, individually and on behalf : of all other similarly situated individuals : Plaintiffs : : v. : : HY’S LIVERY SERVICE, INC., : ROBERT LEVINE, MATTHEW : LEVINE, and SHELLEY LEVINE : Defendants : JANUARY 31, 2018
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION
1. Employers in Connecticut must provide employees at least a thirty (30) minute meal
break and must compensate employees for meal breaks where an employer’s operations
are of a “continuous nature” and requires its employees to be “available to respond to
urgent or unusual conditions at all times.” Conn. Agencies Reg. Sec. 31-51ii. Federal
law requires employers to pay employees for their meal breaks “during which a worker
performs activities predominantly for the benefit of the employer.” Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”); 29 C.F.R Sec. 785.19. Reich v. SNET, 121 F.3d
58, 64 (2d Cir. 1997). These rules protect a worker’s right to eat regular meals during
their work day and prevent wage theft when workers’ meal breaks are spent performing
duties for their employer.
2. Defendants, Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. and its owners, automatically deduct one hour per
day from the work time of their Chauffeurs as meal time, when in fact those workers do
not actually take bona fide meal breaks. Defendants rules and procedures imposed
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 16
2
restrictions and responsibilities on their Chauffeurs during their work days which were so
burdensome that taking meal breaks was virtually impossible. Defendants also refused to
correct their Chauffeur’s pay when they were put on notice that their Chauffeurs had not
taken bona fide meal breaks.
3. Defendants’ intentional violations of state and federal wage laws have deprived Plaintiffs
and the putative class of hundreds of thousands of dollars of unpaid wages and overtime
pay and requires them to pay damages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, attorneys’
fees and costs.
II. PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Mehdi Belgada (“Belgada”) is an individual residing in Milford, Connecticut.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Belgada was an employee of Defendants, as that
term is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Connecticut Wage Act
(“CWA”).
5. Plaintiff Hormoz Akhundzada (“Akhundzada”) is an individual residing in Bridgeport,
Connecticut. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Akhundzada was an employee of
Defendants, as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.
6. Plaintiff Daniel Dziekan (“Dziekan”) is an individual residing in Milford, Connecticut.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dziekan was an employee of Defendants, as that
term is defined in the FLSA and CWA. (Belgada, Akhundzada, and Dziekan collectively
are referred to as the “Plaintiffs”.)
7. Defendant Hy’s Livery Services, Inc. (“Hy’s”), is a Connecticut corporation with a
principal place of business located at 480 Island Lane, West Haven, Connecticut. At all
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 16
3
times relevant to this Complaint, Hy’s was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated individuals, as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.
8. Defendant Robert Levine (“R. Levine”) is the President and an owner of Hy’s. At all
times relevant to this Complaint, R. Levine had the authority to set the hours of
employment, maintain employment records, to direct the work and to determine the rate
and method of payment of wages of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals.
R. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages as
set forth below. Accordingly, R. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated individuals as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.
9. Defendant Matthew Levine (“M. Levine”) is the Vice President and an owner of Hy’s.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, M. Levine had the authority to set the hours of
employment, maintain employment records, to direct the work and to determine the rate
and method of payment of wages of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals.
M. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages
as set forth below. Accordingly, M. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated individuals as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.
10. Defendant Shelley Levine (“S. Levine”) is the Secretary and an owner of Hy’s. At all
times relevant to this Complaint, S. Levine had the authority to set the hours of
employment, maintain employment records, to direct the work and to determine the rate
and method of payment of wages of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals.
R. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages as
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 3 of 16
4
set forth below. Accordingly, S. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated individuals as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
12. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ CWA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
since they are so related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case or
controversy.
13. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts or omissions
giving rise to the claims in this Complaint took place in this district.
IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
14. Employers in Connecticut must pay employees their agreed upon rate for each hour
worked, and must pay employees one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over forty per week. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-68, 31-71a, 31-72, et seq.
(“CWA”). 29 U.S.C. § 207, et seq. (“FLSA”).
15. Employers must provide employees a meal break of at least thirty consecutive minutes
each day; where an employer’s operations are of a “continuous nature” and require
employees to be “available to respond to urgent or unusual conditions at all times” such
meal breaks must be compensated. Conn. Agencies Reg. § 31-51ii.
16. Employers must pay employees for their meal breaks “during which a worker performs
activities predominantly for the benefit of the employer.” Reich v. SNET, 121 F.3d 58, 64
(2d Cir. 1997); Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”); 29 C.F.R §
785.19.
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 4 of 16
5
17. “Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee
breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely
relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals.” C.F.R. § 785.19.
18. Employers must count as hours worked time away from the premises “if the employer
knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed.” C.F.R. § 785.12.
19. An employer must “advise his employees in writing, at the time of hiring, of the rate of
remuneration, hours of employment and wage payments schedules, and (…) make
available to his employees, any employment practices and policies or change therein with
regard to wages (…) and comparable matters.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71f.
20. Employers must keep true and accurate records of employees’ hours worked for each
employee. 29 U.S.C § 211(c), Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-60-12.
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
21. Defendant Hy’s is a Connecticut corporation providing “airport limo service to all
airports in New England, Nationwide and Worldwide …”
www.hyslimo.com/services/airport-limo-service/
22. Hy’s has employed Chauffeurs throughout its existence to pick up, and transport its
clients to New England airports.
23. Hy’s pays its Chauffeurs on an hourly basis, usually $11 per hour, and tracks their time to
the nearest one hundredth of an hour.
24. Hy’s requires its Chauffeurs to report to work, clock in, pick up a limousine, inspect it,
make sure it is fully fueled and stocked and then drive to pick up its clients and deliver
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 5 of 16
6
them to the airport. At the end of the day, Hy’s requires its Chauffeurs to return to the
premises, drop off the vehicle and clock out.
25. On or about December 30, 2015, Defendants implemented a new meal break policy for
their Chauffeurs, stating as follows:
As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016, all Chauffeurs will be given a 1 hour, unpaid meal break every day, while on the road at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation #785.19. If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was deducted, please let me know and it will be adjusted. Also, if you have questions, please come and see me. Please print and sign below that you received and understand this memo.
See Exhibit A (emphasis added)1.
26. C.F.R. § 785.19 Meal., the regulation referenced in Defendant’s policy, sets forth the
requirements of bona fide meal periods as follows:
Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating (emphasis added).
27. Accordingly, Defendants, who required their Chauffeurs to sign the 12/30/15 Memo and
collected the signatures, agreed to pay their Chauffeurs wages for their work when they
were not “completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals.”
1 See Exhibit A, Zubrinsky Memo dated 12/30/15. Chauffeur Manager Dennis Martinez contemporaneously communicated the same policy to employees by email stating they would be required to sign, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 6 of 16
7
28. From January 3, 2016, to the present, and on a continuing basis, Defendants
automatically deducted a one-hour unpaid meal period per day from the pay of each of
Defendants’ Chauffeurs, purporting the deduction to be for an unpaid bona fide meal
break.
29. However, Defendants never told Plaintiffs and the putative class the “time decided by
dispatch” when they could take their breaks as agreed upon.
30. Defendants assigned duties to their Chauffeurs, the nature of which was “continuous” in
that it “requires that employees be available to respond to urgent or unusual
conditions at all times.”
31. Defendants further restricted and confined Chauffeurs’ meal break time on pain of
discipline by the implementation and enforcement of various written rules, procedures,
and through the continuous nature of the work which Defendant knew or should have had
knowledge, including but not limited to the following:
a. Defendants defined their Chauffeurs’ meal break “procedure” as follows:
If you must leave your customer’s location for any reason whatsoever you must follow the appropriate procedure. First of all, you should never leave a client’s location until at least twenty minutes have passed since you dropped them off. This confirms that the client is in the correct location, and that nothing additional is needed from inside the vehicle. Next, as quickly as possible you should proceed to the nearest location for you to obtain food and/or a restroom facility, etc. Then, immediately return to where the customer is supposed to meet you and consume the food there so that you will be ready should your client need you. Always remember that certain foods have strong odors and that the vehicle must always be sanitized prior to picking up the client. Never transfer the smell of food into the vehicle. You are never to stop while the client is in the car. (emphasis added)
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 7 of 16
8
b. Defendants required Chauffeurs to be “available to service their clients at all
times….If you are “ON DUTY” you are available for the day (minimum 12
hours)”;
c. Defendants define “on-duty” time as follows:
• Chauffeurs who are engaged in waiting for or meeting clients at an airport, or any other location.
• Chauffeurs who are operating any vehicle under the direction of their company.
• Any time the Chauffeur is in the presence of a client. • Any time the Chauffeur is being compensated on the companies’
time.
d. Defendants required Chauffeurs to get “coffee, food, etc PRIOR to arriving at
the office for work. Your main objective once you leave the office is to GET
TO YOUR Pickup LOCATION. Chauffeurs who stop somewhere other than
their pickup location while on duty will be disciplined accordingly.” (emphasis in
the original);
e. Defendants prohibited Chauffeurs from eating within vehicles;
f. Defendants required Chauffeurs to arrive fifteen minutes early to assigned
pickups, enforced by GPS monitoring;
g. Defendants required Chauffeurs to stay for twenty minutes after drop-offs,
enforced by GPS monitoring;
h. Defendants required that Chauffeur lunch locations be within two miles of their
next assigned pick up point, enforced by GPS monitoring;
i. Defendants required that Chauffeurs carry smart phones which had to be kept
turned on and with them always;
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 8 of 16
9
j. Defendants required Chauffeurs to constantly check the websites of the airlines
for the status of the flights of their customers and confirm terminal pick up
locations which were subject to change;
k. Defendants required that Chauffeurs clean and stock the vehicles when clients
were away from the vehicles;
l. Defendants held their Chauffeurs responsible for any damage to Defendants’
vehicles by charging them, regardless of whether the Chauffeur had caused the
damages, thereby conferring significant custodial responsibilities upon their
Chauffeurs;
m. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their Chauffeurs
experience heavy traffic in New York City / near airports, making bona fide meal
periods impossible;
n. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that parking is scarce in New
York City / near airports, making bona fide meal periods impossible; and
o. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known the financial expense of
parking in New York City / near airports is cost-prohibitive for their Chauffeurs.
32. Defendants thus for all practical purposes prevented their Chauffeurs from taking bona
fide meal breaks and benefitted by having their business needs met through the unpaid
work of their Chauffeurs.
33. Defendants still usually and customarily refused paying for “actual hours worked” even
upon being notified by their Chauffeurs that no bona fide meal period was taken,
including but not limited to the following:
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 9 of 16
10
a. Defendants responded to their Chauffeurs with needless inquiries even though the
Chauffeurs had provided more than adequate information on actual hours worked;
b. Defendants argued that a break could have been taken between drops and pickups,
even when their Chauffeurs notified Defendants of actual hours worked, i.e. the
Chauffeurs were stuck in traffic or put on standby by the dispatcher; and
c. Defendants retaliated against their Chauffeurs who persisted in being paid for
time spent working through unpaid meal breaks by cutting their scheduled hours
and assignments.
34. Defendants conduct in resisting and refusing to pay for actual hours worked is
particularly egregious because they had more than adequate access to information to
make the proper corrections; they could tell when Chauffeurs had not taken bona fide
meal breaks through their log-in policy, and through their smartphone application Livery
Coach, but nevertheless continued to make the automatic deductions in violation of
federal regulations and the agreement.
35. As a result, Defendants deducted approximately one hour per day, or 5-6 hours per week
from the pay of each of their Chauffeurs, for each week that they worked, when under
state and federal law this time should have been paid as compensable work time for
actual hours worked.
36. Defendants usually scheduled their Chauffeurs for twelve (12) hour days – sixty to
seventy-two (60 - 72) hour weeks - but their mealtime hours were automatically and
improperly deducted, and in addition, they were not paid overtime compensation at a rate
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 10 of 16
11
of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours over 40 per week, as
required by the CWA and FLSA.
VI. COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
A. The FLSA Class
37. Belgada, Akhundzada, and Dziekan (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated employees, present and former, who were
and/or are affected by the actions, policies and procedures of Hy’s, R. Levine, M. Levine,
and S. Levine (“Defendants”) as described herein.
38. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs bring this action in their individual and
personal capacities, separate and apart from the class claims set forth herein.
39. The FLSA class is defined as follows:
All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as
Chauffeurs from January 3, 2016, through the date of final judgment in this
matter.
40. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend said class definition consistent with information
obtained through discovery.
41. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and those members of the FLSA class who have
filed or will file with the Court their consents to sue. This is an appropriate collective or
representative action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), sometimes referred to as an “opt-in class
action,” in that Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class, are similarly situated.
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 11 of 16
12
42. Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the provisions
of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees and
former employees in accordance with the provisions of the FLSA.
B. The Connecticut Rule 23 Class
43. Plaintiffs also sue on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Connecticut
class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
44. The Connecticut Class is defined as follows:
All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as
Chauffeurs at any time from January 3, 2016 through the date of final judgment.
45. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend said class definition consistent with information
obtained through discovery.
46. Class certification for these Connecticut law claims is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3) because all the requirements of the Rules are met.
47. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. On information
and belief, there have been more than fifty (50) Chauffeurs employed by Defendants in
Connecticut during the past two years.
48. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether the putative
class members worked hours for which they were not paid overtime compensation in
violation of Connecticut law, and whether Defendants’ conduct was willful.
49. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class members. The claims of
Plaintiffs encompass the challenged practices and course of conduct of Defendants.
Furthermore, the claims of Plaintiffs are based on the same legal theories as the claims of
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 12 of 16
13
the putative class members. The legal issues as to the violation of the CWA by
Defendants’ conduct applies equally to Plaintiffs and to the class.
50. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The claims of
Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to those of the putative class and they have hired counsel
skilled in the prosecution of class actions.
51. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only
individuals, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. This proposed class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the
court system, protects the rights of each class member and maximizes recovery to them.
VII. COUNT ONE –COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIM UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) FOR VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE FLSA CLASS
52. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ conduct in this regard was a willful violation of the
FLSA, in that Defendants knew or should have known that it was not entitled to
automatically deduct an hour a day as unpaid meal breaks, but did so anyway, and failed
to pay Plaintiffs for that time when in fact no bona fide meal breaks were taken. To the
extent that Plaintiffs had worked 40 hours that week separate and apart from these meal
breaks, this time was compensable overtime under the FLSA.
53. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, and all other members of the FLSA class are entitled to
compensation at one–and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty per week, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs, pursuant to
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 13 of 16
14
VIII. COUNT TWO – CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE CWA ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CONNECTICUT CLASS
54. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants violated the CWA by automatically deducting an
hour a day from their Chauffeurs’ pay when in fact their Chauffeurs had worked during
their meal breaks.
55. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, and all other members of the Connecticut Class are entitled to
compensation, either at straight time for weeks in which they worked forty or less total
hours, or at one–and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked more
than forty per week, as well as penalty damages, attorneys’ fees, and court costs, pursuant
to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-68.
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 14 of 16
15
IX. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons:
a. That, at the earliest possible time, Plaintiffs be allowed to give notice of this collective
action, or that the Court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been
at any time during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit, employed
by Defendants as Chauffeurs. Such notice shall inform them that this civil action has
been filed, the nature of the action, and of their right to join this lawsuit if they believe
they were denied proper wages;
b. Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of members of the Connecticut class and the appointment of
Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the class;
c. Unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA;
d. Unpaid overtime wages under the CWA;
e. Withheld wages under the CWA;
f. Liquidated damages under the FLSA;
g. Penalty damages under CWA;
h. Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law;
i. Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit under the FLSA and CWA, including expert fees; and
j. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 15 of 16
16
X. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals
By: /s/ Richard E. Hayber Richard E. Hayber Hayber Law Firm, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Fed Bar No.: ct11629 (860) 522-8888 telephone (860) 218-9555 facsimile rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
By: /s/ Michael Petela Michael Petela Fed. Bar No. ct28251 The Hayber Law Firm, LLC 900 Chapel Street, Suite 620 New Haven, CT 06510 Fed Bar No. ct28251 (203) 691-6491 (860) 218-9555 (facsimile) mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 16 of 16
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civi l cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the fi l ing 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 of Court for the purpose of inittatmg the CIVIi docket sheet. (SEE !NS11WCTIONS ON NEX/" !'AGE OF THIS FORM)
lv,~11/di t~fa-rlWJ~oz Akhundzadeah and Adaniel Dziekan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situtated individuals
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PlAJNTIFF CASES)
( c) Attorneys (Fmn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Richard E. Hayber and Michael Petela The Hayber Law Firm, LLC., 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 522-8888 telephone
DEFENDANTS . . Hy's livery Service, Inc., Robert Levine, Matthew Levine and Shelley Levine
County of Residence o f F irst Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAIN"f'!FF CASES ON/.Y)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE lHE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (![Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ··x" in One Box for Plamtiff
0 I U.S. Government
Plaintiff
0 2 U.S. Government Defendant
IV NATURE OF SUIT I CONTRACT
0 I IO Insurance 0 120 Marine 0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 150 Recovery of Overpaymenl
& Enforcement of Judgment 0 151 Medicare Act 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Excludes Veterans)
0 l 53 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran 's Benefits
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 J 90 Other Contract 0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 196 Franchise
l REAL PROPERTY
0 210 Land Condemnation 0 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 290 All Otl1er Real Property
~ 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
(Place an "X" in One Box Only) TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 3 IO Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury -0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability
Liability 0 367 Health Carel 0 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical
Slander Personal lnj ury 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability
Liabili ty 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 340 Marine Injury Product 0 345 Marine Product Liability
Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Tmth in Lending
Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage
Injury 0 385 Property Damage 0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability
Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS
0 440 Other Civi l Rights Habeas Corims: 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 443 Housing/ Sentence
Accommodations 0 530 General 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penal ty
Employment Other: 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other
Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee -Conditions of Confinement
V. 0 RIG IN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF
Citi,.en of This State O I O I Incorporated or Principal Place O 4 0 4 of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State
0 5 0 5
Citizen or Subject of a Forei
0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
Click here or: Nature ol Li ll o e escnotions. 'S Cd D FORFEITURE/PENAL TY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
0 625 Dmg Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act
of Property 21 use 88 I 0 423 Withdrawal 0 376 Qui Tam (3J USC
0 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) 0 400 State Reapportiomnent
PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 410 Antitrust 0 820 Copyrights 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 830 Patent 0 450 Commerce 0 835 Patent - Abbreviated 0 460 Deportation
New Dmg Application 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
.LABOR ~OCIAL SEC• IRITY 0 480 Consumer Credi t r~ 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (1395£1) 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/
0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVJ 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 751 Family and Medical 0 893 Environmental Matters
Leave Act 0 895 Freedom oflnfonnation
0 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
0 791 Employee Retirement 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 896 Arbitration
[ocome Security Act or Defendant) 0 899 Administrative Procedure 0 871 IRS-Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
26 use 7609 Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutionality of
IMMIGRATION State Statutes
0 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Im.migration
Actions
IS: I Original O 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court
0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or Reopened
0 5 Transferred from Another Distr ict (specify)
0 6 Multidistrict Litigation -Transfer
0 8 Multidistric t Litigation -Direct File
C ite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are fit ing (Do 1101 citej11risdictiom1/ statutes unless diversity) :
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et se Brief description of cause: Failure to a overtime under the FLSA and Conn. Minimum Wa
Vil. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VIll. RELATED CASE(S) IFANY
DATE
01/31/2018 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTI DEMAND$ UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
JUDGE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: ~ Yes O N o
DOCKET NUMBER
MAG.JUDGE
I
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-2 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2
MEMO: To all chauffeurs FROM: Hy's Management Team RE: Daily Lunch Break's
,
LIMOUSINE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION
12/30/21)15 11:20:49 AM
December 30, 2015
As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016 all chauffeurs will be given a 1 hour, unpaid meal break every day, while on the road at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the US Department of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation# 785.19. You may take that break anywhere within a radius of 2 miles from your next pick up. If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was deducted, please let me ~ow and it will be adjusted. Also, if you have any questions, please come and see me.
Please print and sign below that you received and understand this memo.
Regards, Steve Zubrinsky
Print name:_.r/2_~_cA_· -~-~-i ......... Q:_~_l <9__..\_ Signnam~
HV!S LIMOUSINE WORLDWIDE I New Haven-Fairfield/Greenwich-Hartford I Hyslimo.com I LimoServiceofGreenwich.com I F airfieldlimo.com - •• - .. · - • ... _.., - -- ' •• ·- , ............ ~ • • ., _,.,....,... '"''"'" • ""',._"~ • ,..,, _ _ _ ~l"V"II t'\l'\A l"\l\t\41) f l"'\-----... .1.:AU . ..... 1 :-.,,.. --
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-2 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-3 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2
From: Dennis Martinez <dmartinez@hyslimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 12:02 PM
To: 'Dispatch - Hy's Limousine Worldwide' Subject: New Meal Break Procedure Starting Jan 1, 2016
As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016, all chauffeurs wi ll be given a 1 hour, unpaid
meal break every day, wh ile on the road, at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the US
Department of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation# 785.19.
You make take that break anywhere within a radius of 2 miles from your next pick up.
If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was
deducted, please let accounting know by email just like you would for any other pay
discrepancy.
Please see me with questions on this, thanks!
All chauffeurs will be required to sign off on receiving this memo when getting checks this
week.
Due to this and the holiday, you must pick up your check during the following hours this
~ :
Today Wed 12/30: 12pm-6pm
Tomorrow Thu 12/31: 8am-2pm
Fri 1/1/16: 10am-4pm
Dennis Martinez
Chauffeur Manager
Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-3 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 2
ClassAction.orgThis complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post: Hy’s Livery Services Facing Class Action Over Allegedly Improper Meal Break Deductions
top related