Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 45

Alex McBean Law Office, PLLC
P. Alex McBean, #10390
mcbean04@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 1726
Bountiful, UT 84011
385-319-1137

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JANN DESCANZO;
VERONICA BONDOC;
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
GLEN SEGUNDINO;
COMPLAINT
MARIANNE PONIO; and those
similarly situated,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-CMR

Plaintiffs,
v.

Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero

GRAND AMERICA HOTELS &
RESORTS, INC.; and
SINCLAIR SERVICE CO.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
I.
1.1

INTRODUCTION

Jann Descanzo, Veronica Bondoc, Glen Segundino, and Marianne

Ponio (“Plaintiffs”) are citizens of the Philippines, are Filipino, and studied tourism
and hospitality in the Philippines. As part of their continued education in their
chosen fields, Plaintiffs came to the United States to participate in a J-1 visa

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 45

internship program at the Grand America Hotel, an upscale hotel in Salt Lake City,
Utah. However, once in the United States, they found that few things that the hotel
had promised about their internships were in fact true.
1.2

Also known as the Exchange Visitor Program, a J-1 visa internship is

intended to be an educational and cultural exchange between people of the United
States and other countries that provides intern-participants with hands-on
experience and training. The program must not be used by employers as a
substitute for ordinary employment.
1.3

Since at least 2017, Defendants GRAND AMERICA HOTELS &

RESORTS, INC. (“Grand America”) and SINCLAIR SERVICE CO. (“Sinclair”)
have brought J-1 visa interns to the U.S to work at the Grand America Hotel.
1.4

Pursuant to the program, Grand America was required to create a

training and internship plan for each intern-participant. Grand America was also
required to certify to the United States Department of State (“State Department”)
that the hotel would follow its internship plan for each intern.
1.5

While still in the Philippines, Plaintiffs each obtained internships at

the Grand America Hotel. Grand America provided each of them with the hotel’s
promised internship plan, and Plaintiffs paid recruitment fees to secure the
promised internships and travel costs to the United States.
2

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 45

1.6

The State Department likewise relied on Grand America’s

certifications in issuing Plaintiffs their J-1 visas.
1.7

When Plaintiffs arrived in the U.S., Grand America did not provide

the internships it promised in the plans provided the State Department.
1.8

Instead, Grand America used J-1 visa interns as substitutes for

ordinary employees. For example, Grand America promised each Plaintiff their
internship would include supervised training in five different phases, in five
different departments of the hotel. But Grand America did not offer Plaintiffs any
training and did not complete the phases of its promised internship plans.
Similarly, Grand America promised to expose Plaintiffs to specific cultural
activities, but, in fact, did not deliver any of those promised cultural experiences.
1.9

When Plaintiffs complained that Grand America was not following

the internship plans, the hotel threatened Plaintiffs with deportation if they did not
do the work they were ordered to perform.
1.10 In addition, Grand America did not pay Plaintiffs at least minimum
wage for all hours worked when factoring in fees and costs charged to Plaintiffs
before or during the first work week that were primarily for the benefit of the
employer, including the recruitment fees Plaintiffs were required to pay for the
internships and travel expenses.
3

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 45

1.11 Finally, Grand America treated Plaintiffs and other Filipino J-1
workers differently than other employees performing the same jobs. The hotel
required Filipino workers to work longer hours and perform less desirable tasks
than other employees. And Grand America supervisors made racist comments
about Filipino workers, including calling Filipinos “slow” and “lazy.”
II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2.2

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
III.
3.1

PARTIES

At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Plaintiffs

were citizens of the Philippines who resided in Utah.
3.2

Executed FLSA consent to join forms for the Plaintiffs are attached as

Exhibit 1.
3.3

At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Defendant

Grand America was a Wyoming corporation registered to do business in Utah with
its principal place of business in Utah.

4

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 45

3.4

At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Defendant

Sinclair was a Wyoming corporation registered to do business in Utah with its
principal place of business in Utah.
IV.
4.1

BACKGROUND OF THE J-1 VISA INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Created by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of

1961, the J-1 visa internship program—also known as the Exchange Visitor
Program—is intended to “increase mutual understanding between the people of the
United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and
cultural exchange.” Pub. L. No. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2451
et seq.
4.2

The J-1 visa internship program seeks to do so by “enhanc[ing] the

skills and expertise of exchange visitors in their academic or occupational fields
through participation in structured and guided work-based training and internship
programs and to improve participants’ knowledge of American techniques,
methodologies, and technology.” 22 C.F.R § 62.22(b).
4.3

J-1 visa interns “must not be used as substitutes for ordinary

employment or work purposes; nor may they be used under any circumstances to
displace American workers.” Id. (emphasis added).
4.4

The State Department administers the J-1 visa internship program.
5

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 45

4.5

To obtain visas for J-1 interns, employer-participants are required to

submit Training/Internship Placement Plans (“Internship Plans”) to the State
Department detailing the training and internships they intend to provide to internparticipants. Employer-participants are required to certify the truth of the
statements made in their Internship Plans under penalty of perjury.
V.
A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendants jointly operate the Grand America Hotel.
5.1

Defendants Grand America and Sinclair own and operate the Grand

America Hotel, which is the largest hotel in Salt Lake City, and jointly control
employment and operations decisions at the Grand America Hotel.
5.2

Defendant Grand America entered into employment contracts with

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
5.3

Sinclair holds itself out as “doing business as” the Grand America

Hotel, including to the Utah Division of Corporations.
5.4

Sinclair is also responsible for paying Grand America employees,

including J-1 visa interns.

6

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 45

5.5

Defendants jointly determined the rate and method of payment for

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
5.6

Defendants jointly maintained employment records for Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated, including weekly paystubs for each J-1 intern like that
attached as Exhibit 6.
5.7

Defendant Grand America had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs

and those similarly situated.
5.8

Upon information and belief, Sinclair had the power to hire and fire

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
5.9

Defendant Grand America supervised and controlled the work

schedule and conditions of employment of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
B.

Defendants have a history of using undocumented low-wage workers.
5.10 Defendants have a history of relying on low-wage workers to operate

the Grand America Hotel.
5.11 In the past, Defendants employed undocumented workers to fulfill the
hotel’s need for low-wage workers.
5.12 In 2011, investigators from the United States Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) found that Grand America was employing 133
undocumented workers to operate the hotel.
7

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 45

5.13 After this investigation, DHS issued a written warning, and Grand
America terminated the undocumented workers.
5.14 But Defendants continued to employ undocumented workers at the
Grand America Hotel after receiving the DHS warning.
5.15 After the DHS investigation and warning, Defendants created sham
employment agencies through which the hotel continued to employ undocumented
workers.
5.16 DHS investigators uncovered this unlawful conduct, and Grand
America entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Utah in 2014.
5.17 Pursuant to that agreement, Grand America agreed to pay a $1.95
million penalty.
5.18 Details regarding this history of illegal activity are available from the
United States Department of Justice at https://www.justice.gov/usao-ut/pr/grandamerica-hotels-and-resorts-enters-non-prosecution-agreement-us-attorney-s-office.
5.19 Stymied in their attempts to use undocumented labor, Defendants
turned to non-immigrant visa programs, including the J-1 visa internship program,
to import cheap foreign labor to operate the hotel.

8

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 9 of 45

C.

Defendants use J-1 visa interns as substitutes for ordinary employees.
5.20 To obtain J-1 visas for the interns they recruited, Defendants were

required to submit Internship Plans to the State Department.
5.21 Through their Internship Plans, Defendants certified to the State
Department as follows:
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

I have reviewed, understand, and will follow this
Training/Internship Placement Plan (T/IPP);
I will contact the Sponsor at the earliest possible
opportunity if I believe that the Trainee or Intern is
not receiving the type of training delineated on this
T/IPP;
I will actively support the Sponsor by adhering to
all applicable regulatory provisions that govern this
program (see 22 CFR Part 62);
The Trainee or Intern named in this T/IPP will not
displace full-or part-time, seasonal or permanent
American workers, or serve to fill a labor need;
I will conduct the required periodic evaluations of
the Trainee or Intern named in this T/IPP;
I will notify the designated Sponsor contact at the
earliest available opportunity regarding any
concerns about, changes in, or deviations from this
T/IPP.
I will notify the Sponsor in the event of an
emergency involving the Trainee or Intern named in
this T/IPP, as well as any information that I receive
about the Trainee or Intern that might have an effect
on that exchange visitor’s health, safety, or welfare;
I will notify the Sponsor if I receive information
regarding a serious problem or controversy
involving the Trainee or Intern named in this T/IPP
that could be expected to bring the Department of
State, the Exchange Visitor Program, or the
9

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 10 of 45

9.

10.

11.

Sponsor’s exchange visitor program into notoriety
or disrepute;
I am participating in this Exchange Visitor Program
in order to provide the Trainee or Intern named in
this T/IPP with training or an internship as
delineated in this T/IPP;
I certify that this training or internship meets all the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) I also certify that
training or internships in the field of agriculture
meet all requirements of the Migrant and Seasonal
Worker Protection Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.).
I declare and affirm under penalty of perjury that the
statements and information made herein are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. The law provides severe
penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or
concealing a material fact, or using any false
document in the submission of this form.

See, e.g., Exs. 2 at 4, 3 at 4, 4 at 4, 5 at 4.1
5.22 The State Department relied on Defendants’ certifications when it
issued J-1 visas to Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
5.23 Plaintiffs and proposed class members paid fees in excess of $3,000
each to become J-1 visa interns at the Grand America Hotel.

While two of the four internship plans submitted as exhibits lack Defendants’ signatures, Defendants were required
to sign the document before submitting them to the State Department and did submit the internship plans to the State
Department.
1

10

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 11 of 45

5.24 Plaintiffs and those similarly situated paid for their travel expenses to
and from the United States.
5.25 If Defendants were simply seeking low-wage menial work from nonimmigrant visa holders, they should have used the H-2B visa program.
5.26 Had Defendants used the H-2B visa program rather than the J-1
internship program, they could not have charged—or permitted their recruiters to
charge—recruiting fees, because charging such fees is prohibited by law, including
by 29 C.F.R. § 503.16.
5.27 Likewise, had Defendants used the H-2B visa program rather than the
J-1 internship program, they would have been responsible for the travel costs of
their workers to and from their home countries. Id.
5.28 By using the J-1 internship program instead of the H-2B program,
Defendants improperly shifted costs, including for recruiting and travel, onto
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, while improperly saving themselves
thousands of dollars per worker.
D. Defendants recruited Plaintiffs through the J-1 visa internship program.
5.29 Pursuant to their pattern and practice, Defendants recruited Plaintiffs
and proposed class members while they were in the Philippines.

11

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 12 of 45

5.30 To obtain their J-1 visas, Defendants submitted Internship Plans to the
State Department for each Plaintiff and proposed class member while Plaintiffs and
proposed class members were still in the Philippines.
Jann Descanzo
5.31 Defendants promised Mr. Descanzo an internship. In 2016, Mr.
Descanzo received a Bachelor of Science degree in hospitality and tourism from a
college in the Philippines.
5.32 After completing his degree, Mr. Descanzo looked for an internship at
an American hotel to bolster his career in hospitality and tourism.
5.33 While still in the Philippines, Mr. Descanzo obtained an offer for an
internship at the Grand America Hotel.
5.34 Before beginning his internship, Defendants provided Mr. Descanzo
with an Internship Plan, which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2 (the
“Descanzo Internship Plan”).
5.35 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Descanzo described the
internship Defendants offered to provide and, by signing the form, Defendants

12

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 13 of 45

certified that the description of the internship was true and correct. See id. at 4, 6,
8, 10, 12.2
5.36 The Descanzo Internship Plan included five phases, with detailed
objectives:
Phase 1, Orientation: “The objective of this phase is for the participant
to be introduced to the general policies, standards and procedures of
the hotel. The participant will be given a tour of the facilities, as well
as be introduced to the staff within each department.”
Phase 2, Garde Manager: “The objective of this phase is to introduce
the participant to the daily operations of the Garde Manager. This
phase will equip the participant with the knowledge and skills to
safely and effectively manage the back of the house operations.”
Phase 3, Service Standards and Meats Dept.: “The objective of this
phase is for the participant to get an overview of the daily operations
of the Meats Department. During this phase the participant will be
thoroughly trained on the aspects of safety, law, and procedures of the
meats department in a restaurant business.”
Phase 4, Saucier Department: “The objective of this phase is to give
the participant an overview of the daily operations and expectations of
the saucier department in a high-paced restaurant environment.”
Phase 5, Culinary Management Training: “The objective of this phase
is to give the participant an overview of supervisory duties such as the
scheduling, labor and inventory control, and supervising staff. This
objective will focus on the Participant’s food service management and
organization skills.”

2

While this version of the internship plan lacks Defendants’ signatures, Defendants were required to sign the
document before submitting it to the State Department and did submit the document to the State Department.

13

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 14 of 45

See id. at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11.
5.37 For each phase, Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Descanzo also
included specific goals; an assigned supervisor with appropriate experience; a
description of knowledge, skills, and techniques to be learned during the phase; a
description of how the knowledge, skills and, techniques would be taught; and a
description of how new skills and competencies gained in the internship would be
measured.
5.38 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Descanzo also promised he would
participate in the following cultural experiences: a Dickens Christmas Festival, a
Winter Solstice Festival, the Hogle Zoo, and the X-Dance Film Festival.
5.39 Mr. Descanzo paid fees of at least $3,000 to obtain his internship at
Defendants’ Grand America Hotel, plus travel expenses.
5.40 The reality of Mr. Descanzo’s job at the Grand America Hotel.
Defendants did not provide Mr. Descanzo the internship experience he was
promised. Rather, Defendants employed Mr. Descanzo at the Grand America Hotel
as nothing more than a low-wage worker Defendants needed to operate the hotel.
5.41 Defendants did not permit Mr. Descanzo and the other J-1 visa interns
who worked in the kitchen to move past the first stage of their purported
internships.
14

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 15 of 45

5.42 Instead, Mr. Descanzo was stuck working the Garde Manager (i.e.,
cold foods)—the first phase of his internship plan—for his entire internship.
5.43 According to Defendants’ Internship Plan, Executive Chef Fernando
Soebranis was supposed to supervise Mr. Descanzo’s internship. But Mr. Descanzo
rarely saw Chef Soebranis and thus did not receive the “day to day supervision and
direct feedback” from Chef Soebranis that was promised in his Internship Plan.
5.44 Defendants also did not follow the Internship Plan’s promise that Mr.
Descanzo would work 32 hours a week. Instead, Defendants often required Mr.
Descanzo to work 16-hour days and up to 60 hours a week.
5.45 During one two-week pay period, Defendants required Mr. Descanzo
to work more than 75 hours a week. See Ex. 6 at 1(paystub).
5.46 Supervisors gave Mr. Descanzo and other interns energy drinks to
keep them awake during these long shifts.
5.47 Defendants often required Mr. Descanzo and other Filipino interns to
work longer hours and to perform less desirable tasks than other non-Filipino
employees performing the same work.
5.48 Mr. Descanzo and several other interns complained to Defendants’
sponsor that Defendants were not complying with their Internship Plans.

15

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 16 of 45

5.49 After the complaints by Mr. Descanzo and other interns, Grand
America’s Head Chef Yasu Kanagae and Chef Victor Duranee confronted Mr.
Descanzo and the other interns. Defendants’ chefs told Mr. Descanzo and the other
J-1 visa interns that if they did not perform the work they were ordered to perform,
the hotel would transfer them to the cafeteria for the remainder of their internships,
which was not part of the Internship Plans, but was instead seen as a punishment.
5.50 After that meeting, Defendants did, in fact, transfer one of the J-1 visa
interns to the cafeteria. Mr. Descanzo and the other interns therefore believed they
too would be sent to the cafeteria if they complained again.
5.51 Finally, despite the promises in Defendants’ Internship Plan,
Defendants did not provide any opportunities for Mr. Descanzo or the other J-1
interns to participate in any cultural activities.
Veronica Bondoc
5.52 Defendants promised Ms. Bondoc an internship. Ms. Bondoc attended
college in the Philippines, where she studied subjects related to hospitality and
tourism.
5.53 While still in the Philippines, Ms. Bondoc looked for an internship at
an American hotel to bolster her career in hospitality and tourism.

16

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 17 of 45

5.54 While still in the Philippines, Ms. Bondoc obtained an offer for an
internship at the Grand America Hotel.
5.55 Before beginning her internship, Defendants provided Ms. Bondoc
with an Internship Plan, which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3 (the
“Bondoc Internship Plan”).
5.56 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Bondoc described the internship
Defendants offered and, by signing the form, Defendants certified that the
description of the internship in the form was true and correct. See id. at 4, 6, 8, 10,
12.3
5.57 The Bondoc Internship Plan included five phases, with detailed
objectives:
Phase 1, Orientation: “The Participant’s initial weeks in the hotel will
be dedicated to providing an Orientation that introduces the
Participant to hotel policies, procedures, operations, and customer
service standards.”
Phase 2, Basic Banquet Training: “The objective of this phase is to
introduce the participant to the catering and banquet department of an
upscale hotel. In this phase, the participant will be trained on how to
manage catering projects, meeting customer expectations, as well how
to organize the daily operations of a functioning catering and banquet
department.”

3

While this version of the internship plan lacks Defendants’ signatures, Defendants were required to sign the
document before submitting it to the State Department and did submit the document to the State Department.

17

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 18 of 45

Phase 3, Banquet Operations - Advanced Training: “The objective of
this phase is to further the Participant’s training in the banquet
department. This phase is designed to give the Participant advanced
experience in the banquet and catering department where the previous
phase ended.”
Phase 4, In Room Dining: “The objective of this phase is to introduce
the Participant to the Rooms Service Department. The Participant will
be heavily trained on meeting expectations under a strict timeline.”
Phase 5, Restaurant Operations: “The objective of this phase is to
introduce the Participant to the daily operations and expectations of
operating an upscale American restaurant. This objective will be
heavily focused on customer service skills and interaction.”
Id. at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11.
5.58 For each phase, Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Bondoc also
included specific goals; an assigned supervisor with appropriate experience; a
description of knowledge, skills, and techniques to be learned during the phase; a
description of how the knowledge, skills, and techniques would be taught; and a
description of how new skills and competencies gained in the internship would be
measured.
5.59 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Bondoc also promised she would
participate in the following cultural experiences: a Dickens Christmas Festival, a
Winter Solstice Festival, the Hogle Zoo, and the X-Dance Film Festival.
5.60 Ms. Bondoc paid fees of at least $3,000 to obtain her internship at
Defendants’ Grand America Hotel, plus travel expenses.
18

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 19 of 45

5.61 The reality of Ms. Bondoc’s job at the Grand America Hotel.
Defendants did not provide Ms. Bondoc the internship experience she was
promised. Rather, Defendants employed Ms. Bondoc at the Grand America Hotel
as nothing more than a low-wage worker Defendants needed to operate the hotel.
5.62 After an hour-long orientation, Defendants assigned Ms. Bondoc to
work in banquets.
5.63 Ms. Bondoc remained in banquets for the first six months of her
internship, with no noticeable difference between the basic and the advanced
stages of this stage of the “internship.”
5.64 For the remaining six months of her internship, Defendants assigned
Ms. Bondoc to work as a telephone cashier taking room service orders.
5.65 Defendants never provided Ms. Bondoc with experience in restaurant
operations, as was promised in Defendants’ Internship Plan.
5.66 Defendants often required Ms. Bondoc to work 16 hours a day and
well in excess of the 32 hours a week described in Defendants’ Internship Plan.
5.67 Defendants often required Ms. Bondoc and other Filipino interns to
work longer hours and to perform less desirable tasks than other non-Filipino
employees performing the same work.

19

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 20 of 45

5.68 When Ms. Bondoc complained to her supervisor, Regis Perret, about
Defendants’ failure to follow the Internship Plan, Mr. Perret responded that
Defendants would not provide Ms. Bondoc with the full internship experience she
was promised because she was a good cashier and the hotel therefore needed her to
continue working as a cashier.
5.69 Defendants concern was only to fill a position necessary for the
operation of their hotel, not with fulfilling their promise to provide Ms. Bondoc
with an internship.
5.70 Finally, despite promises in Defendants’ Internship Plan, Defendants
did not provide any opportunities for Ms. Bondoc or the other J-1 interns to
participate in any cultural activities.
Glen Segundino
5.71 Defendants promised Mr. Segundino an internship. Mr. Segundino
attended college in the Philippines, where he studied subjects related to tourism.
5.72 Mr. Segundino looked for an internship at an American hotel to
bolster his career in tourism.
5.73 While still in the Philippines, Mr. Segundino obtained an offer for an
internship at the Grand America Hotel.

20

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 21 of 45

5.74 Before beginning his internship, Defendants provided Mr. Segundino
with an Internship Plan, which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4 (the
“Segundino Internship Plan”).
5.75 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Segundino described the
internship Defendants offered and, by signing the form, Defendants certified that
the description of the internship in the form was true and correct. See Id. at 4, 6, 8,
10, 12.
5.76 The Segundino Internship Plan included five phases, with detailed
objectives.
Phase 1, Orientation: “The Participant’s initial weeks in the hotel will
be dedicated to providing an Orientation that introduces the
Participant to hotel policies, procedures, operations, and customer
service standards.”
Phase 2, Basic Banquet Training: “The objective of this phase is to
introduce the participant to the catering and banquet department of an
upscale hotel. In this phase, the participant will be trained on how to
manage catering projects, meeting customer expectations, as well how
to organize the daily operations of a functioning catering and banquet
department.”
Phase 3, Banquet Operations - Advanced Training: “The objective of
this phase is to further the Participant’s training in the banquet
department. This phase is designed to give the Participant advanced
experience in the banquet and catering department where the previous
phase ended.”

21

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 22 of 45

Phase 4, In Room Dining: “The objective of this phase is to introduce
the Participant to the Rooms Service Department. The Participant will
be heavily trained on meeting expectations under a strict timeline.”
Phase 5, Restaurant Operations: “The objective of this phase is to
introduce the Participant to the daily operations and expectations of
operating an upscale American restaurant. This objective will be
heavily focused on customer service skills and interaction.”
Id. at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11.
5.77 For each phase, Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Segundino also
included specific goals; an assigned supervisor with appropriate experience; a
description of knowledge, skills, and techniques to be learned during the phase; a
description of how the knowledge, skills, and techniques would be taught; and a
description of how new skills and competencies gained in the internship would be
measured.
5.78 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Mr. Segundino also promised he
would get to participate in the following cultural experiences: a Dickens Christmas
Festival, a Winter Solstice Festival, the Hogle Zoo, and the X-Dance Film Festival.
5.79 Mr. Segundino paid fees and costs of at least $3,000 to obtain his
internship at Defendants’ Grand America Hotel, plus travel expenses.
5.80 The reality of Mr. Segundino’s job at the Grand America Hotel.
Defendants did not provide Mr. Segundino the internship experience he was
promised. Rather, Defendants employed Mr. Segundino at the Grand America
22

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 23 of 45

Hotel as nothing more than a low-wage worker that Defendants needed to operate
the hotel.
5.81 Defendants provided Mr. Segundino with little to no training or
supervision and required him to perform menial work, primarily in banquets or the
Garden Café.
5.82 Defendants did not rotate Mr. Segundino through the different phases
of his Internship Plan. For example, Defendants did not allow Mr. Segundino to
work in in-room dining or lobby lounge work, which Defendants staffed primarily
with non-J-1 workers.
5.83 Defendants also did not consistently provide Mr. Segundino the 32
hours a week promised in his Internship Plan. See id. at 1 His work hours were
inconsistent, depending on the needs of the hotel.
5.84 During slow times, Defendants provided Mr. Segundino with
approximately four or five hours of work per day.
5.85 During busier times, Defendants required Mr. Segundino to work
approximately twelve hours a day, sometimes more than five days a week.
5.86 Defendants often required Mr. Segundino and other Filipino interns to
work longer hours and to perform less desirable tasks than other non-Filipino
employees performing the same work.
23

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 24 of 45

5.87 In addition, Mr. Segundino repeatedly heard Grand America
supervisors make disparaging and racist comments regarding Filipino workers,
including that they were “slow” and “lazy.”
5.88 One Grand America supervisor cursed at Filipino workers and
frequently threatened to deport them.
5.89 On one occasion, Mr. Segundino complained about an assignment he
had received; his supervisors, Paul Garcia and Roberto Martinez, responded by
suspending him for two days and threatening that he could be sent back to the
Philippines at any time.
5.90 Mr. Segundino also saw Defendants fire J-1 interns, who were then
sent to their home countries, after they complained about Defendants’ failure to
move J-1 interns through the phases of their internship plans.
5.91 As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Segundino was terrified that
he too would be sent home and did not complain again despite Defendants’
continued failure to follow the Internship Plan.
5.92 At the end of the internship, Mr. Segundino had learned little from the
menial labor he performed at Defendants’ hotel, he had exhausted his savings, and
he was in debt to his aunt for the money he had borrowed to pay recruitment fees

24

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 25 of 45

and travel expenses. Mr. Segundino could not even afford the cost of a plane ticket
home.
5.93 Finally, despite the promises in Defendants’ Internship Plan,
Defendants did not provide any opportunities for Mr. Segundino or the other J-1
interns to participate in any cultural activities.
Marianne Ponio
5.94 Defendants promised Ms. Ponio an internship. In 2016, Ms. Ponio
received a bachelor’s degree in hotel and restaurant management from a college in
the Philippines.
5.95 After completing her degree, Ms. Ponio looked for an internship at an
American hotel to bolster her career in hotel and restaurant management.
5.96 While still in the Philippines, Ms. Ponio obtained an offer for an
internship at the Grand America Hotel.
5.97 Before beginning her internship, Defendants provided Ms. Ponio with
an Internship Plan, which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5 (the “Ponio
Internship Plan”).
5.98 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Ponio described the internship
Defendants offered and, by signing the form, Defendants certified that the

25

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 26 of 45

description of the internship in the form was true and correct. See id. at 4, 6, 8, 10,
12.
5.99 The Ponio Internship Plan included five phases, with detailed
objectives.
Phase 1, Orientation: “The objective of this phase is for the participant
to be introduced to the general policies, standards and procedures of
the hotel. The participant will be given a tour of the facilities, as well
as be introduced to the staff within each department.”
Phase 2, Garde Manager: “The objective of this phase is to introduce
the participant to the daily operations of the Garde Manager. This
phase will equip the participant with the knowledge and skills to
safely and effectively manage the back of the house operations.”
Phase 3, Service Standards and Meats Dept.: “The objective of this
phase is for the participant to get an overview of the daily operations
of the Meats Department. During this phase the participant will be
thoroughly trained on the aspects of safety, law, and procedures of the
meats department in a restaurant business.”
Phase 4, Saucier Department: “The objective of this phase is to give
the participant an overview of the daily operations and expectations of
the saucier department in a high-paced restaurant environment.”
Phase 5, Culinary Management Training: “The objective of this phase
is to give the participant an overview of supervisory duties such as the
scheduling, labor and inventory control, and supervising staff. This
objective will focus on the Participant’s food service management and
organization skills.”
Id. at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11.

26

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 27 of 45

5.100 For each phase, Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Ponio also
included specific goals, an assigned supervisor with appropriate experience; a
description of knowledge, skills, and techniques to be learned during the phase; a
description of how the knowledge, skills, and techniques would be taught; and a
description of how new skills and competencies gained in the internship would be
measured.
5.101 Defendants’ Internship Plan for Ms. Ponio also promised she would
get to participate in the following cultural experiences: a Dickens Christmas
Festival, a Winter Solstice Festival, the Hogle Zoo, and the X-Dance Film Festival.
5.102 Ms. Ponio paid fees of at least $3,000 to obtain her internship at
Defendants’ Grand America Hotel, plus travel expenses.
5.103 The reality of Ms. Ponio’s job at the Grand America Hotel.
Defendants did not provide Ms. Ponio the internship experience she was promised.
Rather, Defendants employed Ms. Ponio at the Grand America Hotel as nothing
more than a low-wage worker that Defendants needed to operate the hotel.
5.104 Defendants did not permit Ms. Ponio to complete the phases of her
Internship Plan.
5.105 Instead, Defendants employed Ms. Ponio to work in the cafeteria and
the pastry departments for her entire internship.
27

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 28 of 45

5.106 Ms. Ponio’s work in the cafeteria consisted primarily of serving food
to other employees and cleaning.
5.107 Ms. Ponio was not supervised by the Executive Chef, as Defendants’
Internship Plan promised, but was instead supervised by a sous chef.
5.108 Defendants provided Ms. Ponio little, if any, meaningful training or
education.
5.109 Defendants often required Mr. Ponio and other Filipino interns to
work longer hours and to perform less desirable tasks than other non-Filipino
employees performing the same work.
5.110 Finally, despite the promises in Defendants’ Internship Plan,
Defendants did not provide any opportunities for Ms. Ponio or the other J-1 interns
to participate in any cultural activities.
5.111 After the internship was complete, Ms. Ponio had no money to repay
the debts she had incurred to pay the fees required to obtain and travel to the
internship; she had no money to pay for a plane ticket home.
E.

Defendants discriminated against Filipino J-1 visa interns during their
employment.
5.112 Grand America supervisors repeatedly made disparaging and racist

comments toward Filipino J-1 visa interns, including calling them slow and lazy.

28

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 29 of 45

5.113 One supervisor threatened to deport Filipino J-1 interns when they
complained about the menial nature of the work Defendants assigned to them. The
supervisor told the interns, “If you don’t want to do the work that is assigned, you
can be sent back to the Philippines immediately.”
5.114 Defendants also required Plaintiffs and other Filipino J-1 interns to
work longer hours and perform less desirable tasks than the non-Filipino
employees. For example, supervisors permitted non-Filipino workers to leave work
early but required Filipino J-1 workers to clean up and begin prep for the following
day. Filipino J-1 workers were generally required to do more prep work than nonFilipino workers, and Filipino J-1 workers were not allowed to participate in
tasting events, which involved direct interaction with hotel guests.
F.

Defendants engaged in trafficking of J-1 visa interns.
5.115 The State Department relied on the statements Defendants made under

penalty of perjury in their Internship Plans when issuing J-1 visas to Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class.
5.116 Defendants also created a working environment that led Plaintiffs to
believe that if they did not continue working for Defendants without complaint,

29

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 30 of 45

they would be suspended or moved to less desirable positions at the hotel, that
were not within their promised Internship Plans.
5.117 Defendants further created a working environment that led Plaintiffs
to believe that if they did not continue working for Defendants without complaint,
they would be terminated and forced to return to the Philippines.
5.118 Defendants further created a working environment that led Plaintiffs
to believe that if they did not continue working for Defendants without complaint,
they would suffer reputational harm, including negative repercussions from their
schools in the Philippines.
5.119 Defendants therefore obtained Plaintiffs’ labor and services by threats
of serious harm and threats of abuse of law or legal process.
G.

Defendants engaged in racketeering.
5.120 The enterprise. Grand America, Sinclair, Alliance Abroad Group

(“Alliance,” Defendants’ J-1 visa sponsor for Plaintiffs), and International
Recruitment Exchange Services, Inc. (“IRES,” Defendants’ recruiter based in the
Philippines) formed an association-in-fact called the “Enterprise.”
5.121 In the alternative, the “Enterprise” is defined as Grand America and
Sinclair; Grand America, Sinclair, and Alliance; or Grand America, Sinclair, and
IRES.
30

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 31 of 45

5.122 The Enterprise was formed for the purpose of inducing the State
Department to issue visas to the J-1 visa interns and then benefiting from that
conduct during the course of the employment of Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated by, among other things, employing Plaintiffs as low-wage workers without
having to pay the travel costs, recruiting costs, and higher visa fees associated with
H-2B workers.
5.123 The Enterprise continues to operate with this same purpose. Indeed,
Defendants appear to be currently recruiting a new wave of J-1 visa interns.
5.124 Racketeering activities. Using the Enterprise, Defendants participated
in a fraudulent scheme by making false representations to the State Department
regarding the terms and conditions of employment at the Grand America Hotel.
5.125 The false representations included promises that Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated would be interns rather than ordinary employees.
5.126 All of these fraudulent statements constituted fraud in foreign labor
contracting pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1351.
5.127 Moreover, sending the documents in furtherance of this fraud to the
State Department and to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated constituted wire and
mail fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

31

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 32 of 45

5.128 Defendants’ fraud caused damage to Plaintiffs’ money and property.
The State Department relied on Defendants’ fraudulent descriptions of the J-1 visa
internships for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated in Defendants’ Internship
Plans in issuing visas for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
5.129 The fraudulent representations caused Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated to lose money and property by inducing them to pay fees and costs,
including recruiting fees and travel expenses they would not have had to pay if
they were properly classified as H-2B workers.
5.130 The only persons harmed by these misrepresentations were Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated, who paid these fees and costs in the expectation of
receiving genuine internships, as required by the J-1 visa program.
VI.
6.1

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs bring their Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims as a

collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants.
6.2

Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiffs

preliminarily define the “FLSA Class” as follows:
All persons who worked for the Grand America Hotel
under J-1 intern visas.

32

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 33 of 45

6.3

All potential FLSA Class Members are similarly situated because,

among other things, they were all employees of Defendants and, upon information
and belief, all suffered from the same policies of Defendants—namely, their illegal
policies of forcing J-1 visa interns to pay fees and costs primarily for the benefit of
the employer without reimbursement, which caused their effective wage to fall
below the minimum wage.
VII. RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
7.1

Plaintiffs allege all claims as a Fed R. Civ P. 23 class action on their

own behalf and on behalf of the class for which they seek certification.
7.2

Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiffs

preliminarily define the “Rule 23 Class” as follows:
All persons who worked for the Grand America Hotel
under J-1 intern visas.
7.3

Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiffs

preliminarily define the “Rule 23 Sub-Class” as follows:
All persons with Filipino race, ethnicity, or ancestry who
worked at the Grand America Hotel under J-1 intern
visas.
7.4

The classes are so numerous that joinder of all potential class

members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size of the classes since
that information is within the control of Defendants. Plaintiffs estimate there are
33

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 34 of 45

more than 100 persons in each proposed class and sub-class. The exact size of the
class will be easily ascertainable from Defendants’ records.
7.5

There are questions of law or fact common to the classes that

predominate over any individual issues that might exist, including but not limited
to:
a. Whether Defendants engaged in fraudulent schemes, acts and
misrepresentations to employ J-1 visa interns;
b. Whether Defendants engaged in fraud in foreign labor contracting;
c. Whether Defendants engaged in mail and wire fraud;
d. Whether Defendants engaged in racketeering;
e. Whether Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of
discriminating against Filipino J-1 visa interns;
f. Whether Defendants created a hostile work environment for Filipino
J-1 visa interns;
g. Whether Defendants obtained labor and services from Plaintiffs and
the proposed class by means of threats of serious harm and threats of
abuse of law or legal process; and
h. The nature and extent of damages.

34

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 35 of 45

7.6

The class claims asserted by Plaintiffs are typical of the class claims

because Plaintiffs experienced the same or similar working conditions and pay
practices as other J-1 visa interns.
7.7

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy because numerous identical lawsuits
alleging similar or identical causes of action would not serve the interests of
judicial economy. This is especially true in the case of low-wage, hourly, J-1
interns, like the class members here, who are unsophisticated, are unlikely to seek
legal representation, cannot realistically navigate the legal system pro se, and
whose small claims make it difficult to retain legal representation.
7.8

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests

of the class. Plaintiffs were Defendants’ employees and were victims of the same
violations of law as the other class members.
7.9

Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in litigation on

behalf of low-wage and foreign workers.
7.10 The prosecution of separate actions by the individual potential class
members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
to individual potential class members that would establish incompatible standards
of conduct for Defendants.
35

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 36 of 45

7.11 Each class member’s claim is relatively small. Thus, the interest of
potential class members in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of
separate actions is slight. In addition, public policy supports the broad remedial
purposes of class actions in general and the pertinent laws and claims are
appropriate vehicles to vindicate the rights of those employees with small claims as
part of the larger class.
7.12 Plaintiffs are unaware of any members of the putative classes who are
interested in presenting their claims in a separate action.
7.13 Plaintiffs are unaware of any pending litigation commenced by
members of the classes concerning the same controversy.
7.14 It is desirable to concentrate this litigation in this forum because all
Defendants are registered to do business in this district and the acts and omissions
giving rise to this action largely occurred in this district or on foreign soil.
7.15 This class action will not be difficult to manage because claims of the
class are uniform, and the claims are susceptible to both class litigation and the use
of representative testimony and representative documentary evidence.
7.16 The contours of the class will be easily defined by reference to the
payroll documents Defendants were legally required to create and maintain.
VIII. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation of the Fair Labor
36

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 37 of 45

Standards Act
FLSA Class Against All Defendants
8.1

Plaintiffs assert this count on their own behalf and on behalf of all

other similarly situated employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
8.2

At all relevant times, Defendants had two or more employees.

Defendants’ Internship Plans attached to this Complaint and which Defendants
certified as true and accurate state there are 1,800 full-time employees onsite at the
Grand America Hotel.
8.3

At all relevant times, Defendants had an annual dollar volume of sales

or business done of at least $500,000. In fact, according to Defendants’ Internship
Plans, the annual revenue of the Grand America Hotel is between $3 million and
$10 million.
8.4

At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. In particular,
Plaintiffs handled food, supplies, and tools necessary for their jobs that travelled in
interstate coverage.
8.5

Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were “employees” as that

term is defined by 29 U.S.C § 203(e) because Defendants directly controlled the
work of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, and Sinclair was responsible for
paying Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for their work.
37

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 38 of 45

8.6

For similar reasons, Defendants “employed” Plaintiffs and all others

similarly situated as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(g) because each
Plaintiff and member of the FLSA Class was suffered or permitted to work by
Defendants.
8.7

Finally, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA

Class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) because Defendants acted directly or
indirectly in their interest in relation to Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Class
by, among other things, controlling when, where, and how Plaintiffs and members
of the FLSA Class worked; maintaining employment records for Plaintiffs and
members of the FLSA Class; setting the terms of employment for Plaintiffs and
members of the FLSA Class; and having the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs and
members of the FLSA Class.
8.8

Defendants violated the FLSA when they failed to pay Plaintiffs and

the FLSA Class at least minimum wage for their work. Although Defendants paid
Plaintiffs and FLSA Class members minimum wage or above for their hourly work
once they arrived at the hotel, the fees Defendants required them to pay to obtain
their visas and travel must be deducted from their wages, because those fees were
principally for the benefit of Defendants. As a result, the effective wage for

38

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 39 of 45

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated was less than minimum wage for a
substantial part of their employment.
8.9

Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful under 29 U.S.C. §

255(a) because they knew or should have known that the recruitment and travel
fees were primarily for the benefit of Defendants and thus Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated were entitled to unpaid minimum wage under FLSA and/or, upon
information and belief, they failed to make adequate inquiry regarding whether the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were properly paid the minimum wage.
8.10 Furthermore, Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful under
29 U.S.C.

§ 255(a) because Defendants sought to use J-1 visa holders to replace

their previous workforce of undocumented workers.
8.11 Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are entitled to recover
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and postjudgment interest. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 216(b).
IX. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Civil RICO Violation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
Rule 23 Class Against All Defendants
9.1

As set forth above, Plaintiffs assert this count on their own behalf and

on behalf of all those similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

39

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 40 of 45

9.2

Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”) by violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1964(c).
9.3

Defendants and the Enterprise engaged in the fraudulent schemes,

acts, and misrepresentations described above, which violate the fraud in foreign
labor contracting statute (18 U.S.C. § 1351) and the mail and wire fraud statutes
(18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343).
9.4

By conducting the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering,

Defendants caused injury to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
9.5

Among other things, each of these RICO violations caused Plaintiffs

and those similarly situated to suffer loss of past, current, and prospective wages
and to spend unpaid time working as opposed to pursuing other interests. In
addition, Defendants’ RICO violations caused Plaintiffs to pay fees and costs to
obtain their visas and travel to the United States to work for Defendants.
9.6

As a result, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated suffered injuries and

are entitled to treble damages, fees, and costs as set forth by law.
X.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Discrimination Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry in Violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Rule 23 Subclass Against All Defendants
10.1 As set forth above, Plaintiffs assert this count on their own behalf and
on behalf of all those similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
40

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 41 of 45

10.2 Plaintiffs are Filipino and are within the class protected by Section
1981.
10.3 Defendants are employers for purposes of Section 1981.
10.4 Defendants employed Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
10.5 Defendants recruited Plaintiffs for employment at the Grand America
Hotel, made representations to Plaintiffs about the terms and conditions of their
employment, and entered into contracts acknowledging themselves as Plaintiffs’
employer.
10.6 Defendants created, condoned, and failed to prevent and correct a
hostile work environment for Plaintiffs during their employment, because of their
race, ethnicity, and ancestry.
10.7 Creation of a hostile work environment and discrimination in terms
and conditions of employment are adverse employment actions.
10.8 Defendants did not create a hostile work environment for similarly
situated, non-Filipino employees and treated such employees more favorably than
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
10.9 Defendants’ actions described herein were intentional and taken with
malice and with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.

41

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 42 of 45

10.10 Defendants failed to take reasonable care to prevent and to correct the
unlawful and discriminatory practices described herein.
10.11 As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ discriminatory actions
and conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer damages
including, but not limited to, emotional distress and other compensatory damages
in an amount to be determined at trial; punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial; and attorneys’ fees and costs.
XI. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Rule 23 Class Against all Defendants
11.1 As set forth above, Plaintiffs assert this count on their own behalf and
on behalf of all those similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
11.2 Defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act by
violating 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
11.3 Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ labor and services by means of threats
of serious harm and threats of abuse of law or legal process.
11.4 Defendants engaged in a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause
Plaintiffs to believe that, if Plaintiffs did not provide Defendants with their labor
and services, they would suffer serious harm.

42

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 43 of 45

XII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12.1 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of proposed class members, pray
for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A.

Certifying the Rule 23 Class and the Rule 23 Sub-Class, appointing

the named Plaintiffs as class representatives of the respective classes they seek to
represent, and appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;
B.

Conditionally and finally certifying the FLSA Class;

C.

At the earliest possible time, permitting Plaintiffs to give notice of this

collective action to the members of the FLSA Class;
D.

Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants;

E.

Awarding Plaintiffs and the classes their actual damages and any

applicable statutory damages;
F.

Awarding Plaintiffs and those similarly situated their costs;

G.

Awarding Plaintiffs and those similarly situated their attorneys’ fees;

H.

Awarding Plaintiffs and members of the classes all appropriate

equitable and injunctive relief;

43

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 44 of 45

I.

Awarding Plaintiffs and members of the classes punitive, exemplary,

and liquidated damages as allowed by law;
I.

Awarding Plaintiffs and members of the classes prejudgment and

post-judgment interest, when allowable by law; and
J.

Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

ALEX MCBEAN LAW OFFICE
By: /s/ P. Alex McBean
P. Alex McBean, #10390
Alex McBean Law Office, PLLC
Email: alex@alexmcbeanlaw.com
503 West 2600, Suite 200
Bountiful, Utah 84010
Telephone: 358.347.0727
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Alexander Hood, PHV pending
Email: alex@towardsjustice.org
1410 High Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80218
Telephone: 720.441.2236
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE –
LOS ANGELES
Christopher M. Lapinig, PHV pending
1145 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 91107
Telephone: 213.977.7500
Facsimile: 213.977.7595
44

 Case 2:19-cv-00443-CMR Document 2 Filed 06/25/19 Page 45 of 45

TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
Beth E. Terrell, PHV pending
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
Erika L. Nusser, PHV pending
Email: enusser@terrellmarshall.com
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
Telephone: 206.816.6603
Facsimile: 206.319.5450
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

45