Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GLORIA CONLEY, MICHAEL JONES, and RODERICK MUKES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY PROCLAIMED MINISTRY, MINISTRY OF PROPERTY, HERBERT DAVIS, DONNA GRIFFIN, and ROBERT GRIFFIN, Individually, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-1507 Jury Demanded PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Gloria Conley, Michael Jones and Roderick Mukes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs” and “Class Members” herein) brings this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) suit against the above-named Defendants and shows as follows: I. NATURE OF SUIT This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA by workers who were employed by the Defendants to service Defendants’ contracts with various entities for custodial and trash collection services. For example, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, performed such work as cleaning roadsides by picking up trash. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of other of Defendants’ workers similarly situated. The Plaintiffs and class members were regularly uncompensated for work performed, and regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid the overtime rate required by the FLSA. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 1 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 II. 1. Page 2 of 7 PageID 2 PARTIES Plaintiff Gloria Conley is a resident of the State of Texas and resides in this judicial district. Her written consent to this action is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Plaintiff Michael Jones is a resident of the State of Texas and resides in this judicial district. His written consent to this action is attached as Exhibit B. 3. Plaintiff Roderick Mukes is a resident of the State of Texas and resides in this judicial district. His written consent to this action is attached as Exhibit C. 4. The Plaintiffs and “Class Members” are those employees who worked for Defendants on crews performing custodial and trash collection services for Defendants’ clients and who were not paid for their actual hours of work. These employees are similarly situated to Plaintiffs in that they worked on custodial crews and were only paid for the number of hours Defendants decided to pay them and not for the actual hours they performed work for Defendants. Several of the Class Members have come forward and expressed an interest in participating in this case as opt-in plaintiffs. The written consents of some of these individuals will be filed with the Court. 5. Defendant Liberty Proclaimed Ministry (LPM) is a Texas corporation licensed to do business in Texas and can be served by serving its registered agent Donna Griffin at 2727 Saint Louis Ave., Fort Worth, TX 76110. 6. Defendant Ministry of Property (MOP) is a Texas entity that can be served at its place of business. 7. Herbert Davis is an individual who resides in the State of Texas and may be served at his residence or wherever he may be found. Mr. Davis co-owned and operated LPM and MOP. 8. Donna Griffin is an individual who resides in the State of Texas and may be served at her residence or wherever she may be found. Ms. Griffin co-owned and operated LPM and MOP. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 2 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 9. Page 3 of 7 PageID 3 Robert Griffin is an individual who resides in the State of Texas and may be served at his residence or wherever he may be found. Mr. Griffin co-owned and operated LPM and MOP. III. 10. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiffs have asserted a claim arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 11. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because the events forming the basis of this suit occurred in this District and Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in this District. IV. 12. COVERAGE At all material times, Defendants have acted, directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer or joint employer with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been employers or joint employers within the meaning of the Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been an enterprise within the meaning of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r). 15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that said enterprise has had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 3 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4 and in that said enterprise has had and an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated). 16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiffs and Class Members were individual employees who were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207. 17. At all material times, Plaintiffs and Class Members were employed by one or more of the Defendants. V. 18. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Defendants have contracts with various entities to perform cleaning and custodial services. For example, Defendants have a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation to perform trash cleaning services for certain roadsides and certain buildings. Defendants do over $500,000.00 per year in business. In addition, Defendants are engaged in commerce because their contracts often involve cleaning interstate highways. 19. Defendants Herbert Davis, Donna Griffin, and Robert Griffin are the owners of LPM and MOP. They are responsible for the day-to-day operations of both companies. Defendants Davis, Donna Griffin and Robert Griffin are also responsible for determining compensation policies and procedures with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 20. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to work on custodial crews and perform such custodial tasks as cleaning roadsides within the three years prior to filing this lawsuit. 21. Plaintiffs were a hourly-paid employees throughout their entire time at LPM and MOP. However, Defendants only paid Plaintiffs for a flat number of hours per day regardless of how many hours they actually worked. Throughout the course of their employment, Plaintiffs would PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 4 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5 frequently work more than the compensated number of hours per day – sometimes working up to 14 hours in a day. 22. Plaintiffs also worked several weekend days for which the employer did not pay them at all. 23. Plaintiffs were not paid overtime for their hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in spite of the fact that they worked significant overtime hours throughout the course of their employment with Defendants. 24. During the three year period prior to this suit, Defendants have employed individuals to perform the same or similar tasks as Plaintiffs and paid them under the same pay provisions as Plaintiffs – who were not paid minimum wage or overtime wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) & 207(a). 25. Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay minimum wage compensation and overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. VI. 26. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs and the Class Members were subject to the same pay provisions by which they were not paid at all for significant hours worked, and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 27. Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) & 207(a) in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and time-and-a-half for each hour over 40 worked in a workweeek. Application of this policy or practice does not depend on the personal circumstances of the Plaintiffs or those joining this lawsuit. Rather, the same policy PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 5 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6 or practice which resulted in the non-payment of minimum wage and overtime wages to Plaintiffs applied to all Class Members. 28. Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class Members by failing to pay each employee for his/her total hours worked. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 29. During the relevant period, Defendants have violated and are violating the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) & 207(a) by employing employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA as aforesaid, and failing to pay employees minimum wages and overtime pay for the hours that they worked for Defendants. Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members in accordance with the law. IX. 30. RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: a. For an Order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA finding Defendants liable for unpaid back wages due to Plaintiff (and those who may join the suit) for unpaid hours worked, and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due to Plaintiffs (and those who may join the suit); c. For an Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) the costs of this action; d. For an Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) attorneys fees; PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 6 Case 3:13-cv-01507-G Document 1 Filed 04/17/13 e. Page 7 of 7 PageID 7 For and Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) pre- judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; and f. For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, _/s/ J. Derek Braziel___________ J. Derek Braziel Texas Bar No. 00793380 jdbraziel@l-b-law.com Meredith Mathews Texas Bar No. 24055180 mmathews@l-b-law.com LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com Michael O’Keefe Cowles EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER Texas Bar No. 24082865 Michael@equaljusticecenter.org 1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 (469) 203-2150 phone (469) 629-5045 fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page - 7