Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
LACRYSTAL HUBBARD, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, &
KRISHA D. HOLLINGWORTH, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Versus

PLAINTIFFS
Civil Action No. 2:18cv91-KS-MTP

GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC. and John or Jane Does #1-25

DEFENDANT

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs, LaCrystal Hubbard, (“Plaintiff Hubbard”), individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Krisha D. Hollingsworth (“Plaintiff Hollingsworth”), individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, sue the Defendant and file this Amended Complaint and
Collective Action Complaint and demand a jury trial against General Dynamics Information
Technology, Inc., (“Defendant GDIT” or “Defendant”) on the following grounds:
STATUTORY BASIS
This action is brought under (1) the FLSA 29 U.S.C. § 203, et seq., (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for
race discrimination, and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as to the claim for attorneys’
fees.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Subject matter jurisdiction is also appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for the

Plaintiffs’ claims arise under 29 U.S.C. § 203, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 29
U.S.C. § 216(b).
2.

This court has personal jurisdiction because the Defendant resides and/or conducts

business within this district.
Page 1 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 2 of 9

3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), venue is proper in this district and division.
PARTIES

4.

Plaintiff LaCrystal Hubbard is an African-American female citizen of Hinds County,

Mississippi, and was an employee of Defendant GDIT at their call center located in Hattiesburg,
MS, from approximately June of 2013 to June of 2017.
5.

Plaintiff Krisha Hollingsworth is an African-American female citizen of Forrest

County, Mississippi, and was an employee of Defendant GDIT at their call center located in
Hattiesburg, MS, from September 23, 2013, to March 22, 2018.
6.

Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (“GDIT”) is a wholly-

owned subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation, with his corporate headquarters located at
3211 Jermantown Road, Fairfax VA 22030, and customer service representative call centers located
in Mississippi and other states, and may be served with process by serving its Mississippi registered
agent, C T Corporation, 645 Lakeland East Dr., Suite 101, Flowood, MS 39232.
7.

John or Jane Does #1-25 are unknown affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies,

owners, board members or officers of General Dynamics Information Technology who may have
employed the Plaintiffs or others similarly situated, either directly or indirectly, and who may be
responsible for unpaid overtime wages, or for other claims.
FACTS
8.

Plaintiff Hubbard was employed by Defendant GDIT from approximately June of

2013 until June of 2017.
9.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated worked over forty (40) hours in one

week for one or more weeks while employed by Defendant GDIT.
10.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated worked overtime for which

Defendant GDIT did not compensate them for on a routine basis over the last three (3) years.

Page 2 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 3 of 9

11.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated were regularly issued paychecks by the

Defendant GDIT.
12.

At all relevant times, Defendant GDIT failed to properly compensate Plaintiff

Hubbard and others similarly situated and/or pay Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated at a
rate of one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty
(40) hours during one or more work weeks. As such, Defendant GDIT failed to comply with 29
U.S.C. §§ 201-209.
13.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated worked approximately 10-20

uncompensated overtime hours each week depending on the individual and the circumstances.
14.

The nature of the work performed during the overtime hours included work that was

the responsibility of the employee at their regular rate of pay as well as work that was the
responsibility of other employees who were paid at higher rates of pay. Often the purpose of the
overtime was for employees to complete their daily duties and meet daily quotas that they failed to
meet in regular working hours. Failure to work overtime in order to meet said quotas resulted in
disciplinary measures being taken against the employee.
15.

At all material times to this action, Defendant GDIT was a covered employer as set

out in Section 203 of the FLSA.
16.

At all material times to this action, Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated

were employees as that term is defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).
17.

At all material times to this action, Defendant GDIT was engaged in commerce

within the meaning of the FLSA.
18.

At all relevant times, Defendant GDIT had gross annual operating revenues in

excess of $500,000.00, which is the threshold test for the “enterprise” requirement under the FLSA.

Page 3 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 4 of 9

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Wage-and-Hour Allegations
19.

In addition to asserting her individual claim for unpaid wages and overtime pay,

Plaintiff Hubbard brings this FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on
behalf of all persons who previously worked or currently work for GDIT at customer service call
centers who were not paid an overtime premium at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times
the regular rate at which they are employed for all hours in excess of forty (40) hours in a work
week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
20.

Plaintiff Hubbard brings this case as a collective action under the FLSA to recover

unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and
damages owed to Plaintiff Hubbard and all similarly situated employees of Defendant GDIT across
various locations across the United States.
21.

This action is properly maintained as a collective action because the Plaintiff is

factually similarly situated to the collective action members she seeks to represent.
22.

Plaintiff Hubbard is personally aware that other persons who worked for Defendant

GDIT were subject to the same practices and policies instituted by Defendant GDIT of requiring
the putative collective action Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours in a single work week and failing
to pay them an overtime premium at a rate not less than one and one half (1 ½) times the regular
rate.
23.

Plaintiff Hubbard as well as other putative Plaintiffs worked more than forty (40)

hours each week, completing tasks that went beyond de minimis activities.
24.

Both Plaintiff Hubbard and Plaintiff Hollingsworth as well as other putative

plaintiffs held multiple employment positions while working at GDIT and worked in positions that,
under law, were misclassified as being “exempt” from overtime pay instead of non-exempt.
25.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were denied overtime compensation as a
Page 4 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 5 of 9

result of Defendant GDIT’s misclassification of their exempt status as employees.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Racial Discrimination Allegations
26.

The Plaintiffs and other potential class members working in Defendant GDIT’s

Hattiesburg, Mississippi call center are African-American and are members of a protected class.
27.

The Plaintiffs and other putative class members working in the Hattiesburg Call

Center were qualified for the positions that they applied for and held as employees at GDIT.
28.

The Plaintiffs and other putative class members working in the Hattiesburg Call

Center suffered an adverse employment action due to GDIT’s intentional refusal to pay African
American employees proper overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. Defendant GDIT
also failed to afford the same employment opportunities to African American employees which
resulted in unequal access to promotions, rewards, compensation, and other employment
opportunities. The work force involved in making these claims is approximately ninety percent
(90%) African-American, a recognized minority group, while supervisory employees and decision
makers are primarily white individuals. Defendant GDIT’s actions primarily impact AfricanAmericans. Moreover, African-Americans were directed into low-level jobs and were excluded
intentionally and systematically from management positions.
29.

Plaintiff Hubbard, specifically, was subject to unwanted, intentional harassment

based on her race, which created a work environment so hostile as to require her to seek medical
and psychological treatment.
30.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others were also subject to discrimination by Defendant

GDIT’s intentionally refusing to pay African American employees the proper prevailing and
overtime wage for the work they were performing. This work consisted not only of the normal

Page 5 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 6 of 9

duties of the employees but also those duties assigned to other employees who were paid at a higher
rate of pay.
31.

This harassment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff Hubbard’s work environment

and performance and involved supervisors making discriminatory statements and treating Plaintiff
Hubbard in a discriminatory manner in ways including but not limited to following her to the
bathroom and constantly entering her cubicle to be sure she was working. This harassment was
motivated by Plaintiff Hubbard’s race and such harassment was not endured by other white
employees.
32.

The circumstances of adverse employment discriminatory action against the

Plaintiffs and similarly situated Hattiesburg employees give rise to the inference of racial
discrimination because the similarly classified white employees are treated more favorably.
33.

The system used by the Defendant GDIT to unequally pay the Plaintiffs and other

potential class members amounts to disparate treatment and was intentionally discriminatory against
the Plaintiffs and other potential class members.
34.

Defendant GDIT’s actions prevented the Plaintiffs and other potential class

members from enjoying the full and equal protection and benefit that white employees enjoyed.

CAUSES OF ACTION
I.

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

35.

All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

36.

Three (3) years prior to filing of the complaint, Plaintiff Hubbard and others

similarly situated were non-exempt employees and subject to the provisions of the FLSA as it
pertains to whether or not Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated were entitled to minimum
wage and overtime pay for all hours over forty (40) hours worked in a given week.

Page 6 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 7 of 9

37.

The FLSA requires that employees be paid an overtime premium at a rate not less

than one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate at which they are employed for all hours in excess
of forty (40) hours in a work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
38.

Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated have not been paid overtime

compensation under the FLSA at a rate of one and one-half (1 ½) times her regular rate of pay.
39.

Additionally, Defendant GDIT has violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiffs

and others situated as exempt employees, when they should have been treated as non-exempt and
paid overtime compensation.
40.

The acts of Defendant GDIT constitute a willful intentional violation of the FLSA

and have caused damage to Plaintiff Hubbard and others similarly situated in the form of back pay
from the Defendant’s failure to provide overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at
trial.
41.

Although the Plaintiff Hubbard is unsure of the number at the time of filing this

Complaint, the precise number of persons comprising the FLSA Collection Action Class can be
easily identified and located using the Defendant’s timesheets, payroll, time records, and other
business records.
42.

Given the composition and size of the potential FLSA collective action class,

potential opt-in class members should be given notice of their right to join this suit as members of
the class.
I1. VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981: RACE DISCRIMINATION
43.

All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

44.

The Defendant’s intentional action in withholding overtime compensation and the

appropriate prevailing wage from its African-American employees and denying its African-American
employees opportunities was systematic and amounts to disparate treatment of a protected class.

Page 7 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 8 of 9

45.

The discriminatory conduct of the Defendant was also willful, wanton and

intentional such that punitive damages should be assessed.
46.

The Plaintiffs and other potential class members were a members of a protected

class, were qualified for their position, and suffered adverse employment action which gave rise to
an inference of racial discrimination.
47.

Plaintiff Hubbard, specifically, suffered unwelcomed, racially-motivated

discrimination, which created a hostile work environment so severe a reasonable person in her
position would find her work environment to be hostile and abusive.
48.

The Defendant’s conduct constitutes race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

49.

Plaintiff Hollingsworth and other potential class members are entitled to attorneys’

1981.

fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
WILLFUL VIOLATION
50.

The Defendant’s acts constituted a willful violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and

others similarly situated under the FLSA and in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 255.
TRIAL BY JURY
51.

The Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, The Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, pray for the following relief:
(a)

Certification of a collective action class consisting of the Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated GDIT employees who were not paid overtime compensation as required under the
FLSA;
(b)

Damages in the amount of Seventy-five Million and no/100 Dollars

($75,000,000.00), including the following:

Page 8 of 9

 Case 2:18-cv-00091-KS-MTP Document 37 Filed 09/07/18 Page 9 of 9

i.

Unpaid wages and liquidated damages in the maximum amount allowed by

29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and the supporting regulations;
ii.

General compensatory damages for the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims;

iii.

Attorneys’ fees and expenses of the action requested pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) including expert fees and costs;
iv.
(c)

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and,

Punitive damages for the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim resulting from the Defendant’s

malicious actions and reckless indifference to the Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights; and
(d)

Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of September, 2018.
/s/ Robin L. Roberts
Robin L. Roberts, Plaintiffs’ Attorney
Robin L. Roberts (MB #5596)
Roberts & Associates
P. O. Box 1953
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
601-544-0950; Fax: 601-450-5395
Email: robin@rablaw.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robin L. Roberts, do hereby certify that I have this day electronically served the foregoing
using the Court's ECF System, which sent electronic notification of such filing to all counsel of
record.
This the 7th day of September, 2018.
/s/ Robin L. Roberts
Robin L. Roberts

Page 9 of 9