Barrett & Farahany, LLP, LLP filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Atlanta against Defendants Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc. and Phillip Martin on behalf of their client, an employee of the Defendants. The lawsuit seeks to redress the Defendants unlawful employment practices and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff seeks relief and damages for the failure of the Defendants to pay federally mandated overtime wages.
Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc., a private Georgia corporation with interstate commerce, employed the Plaintiff from 2007 to 2013 and during that time the Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages for his non-exempt labor, as required by law. Mr. Martin is the owner of Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc and during the Plaintiff’s employment he had authority to hire and fire employees, create and alter company policies, and additionally had discretion over job duties, payroll and compensation.
The Plaintiff began work with the Defendants in June 2007 as a security guard and eventually held the position of Assistant Manager at the time of his termination in July 2013. The Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per work week and was not paid overtime. During his employment, the Plaintiff complained to Mr. Martin of Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc. that he was not paid time and a half for the hours worked over his 40 hour work week. In addition, the Plaintiff was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assist with on-site emergencies and was not compensated for after-hours time worked as emergencies arose.
The Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The FLSA was regularly and repeatedly violated and the Defendants displayed reckless disregard for failing to pay overtime wages. In addition, the Defendants failed to report, record and retain employment records of hours worked by the Plaintiff. As a result of the willful behavior and show of bad faith, the lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff to recover overtime wages, damages in equal amount, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses from the Defendants.
PDF of Complaint IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CHARLES MOORE, Plaintiff, v. PEMBROOKE TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT, INC. and PHILLIP MARTIN, Defendants. Civil Action No.JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW Plaintiff Charles Moore (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and files this lawsuit against Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Pembrooke”) and Phillip Martin (hereinafter “Defendant Martin”)(collectively, “Defendants”), and shows the following:
I. Nature of Complaint
1. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain full and complete relief and to redress the unlawful employment practices described herein.
2. This action seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for Defendants’ failure to pay federally mandated overtime wages to Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”) during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “relevant time period”).
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), and 28 U.S.C. §1343(4).
4. Defendant Pembrooke is a Georgia corporation, and the unlawful employment practices described herein occurred at 5790 Hwy. 85 Suite 3011, Riverdale, GA, 30274. Accordingly, venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b); LR 3, Northern District of Georgia.
III. Parties
5. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Plaintiff was an “employee” (as defined under FLSA §3(e), 29 U.S.C. §203(e)) for Defendants, and, in any workweek, was engaged in commerce within the definitions of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). 7. Plaintiff performed non-exempt labor for the Defendants within the last three years in excess of forty (40) hours per work week and was not paid an overtime wage differential, as required by 29 U.S.C. §207. 8. Defendants employed the named Plaintiff during the relevant time period. 9. Defendant Pembrooke is a private employer engaged in interstate commerce, and its gross revenues exceed $500,000 per year. 10. Defendant Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc. is an “employer” within the definition of FLSA §3(d), 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 11. Defendant Pembrooke is governed by and subject to FLSA §7, 29 U.S.C. §204 and §207.
12. Defendant Pembrooke can be served through its Registered Agent, Phillip Martin, at 1742 Caswell Parkway, Marietta, Georgia 30060. 13. Defendant Martin is the owner of Pembrooke Townhomes Homeowners Association Management, Inc. During all times relevant to this action, Defendant Martin had authority to create and alter the policies of Defendant Pembrooke, and to hire and fire any employees of Defendant Pembrooke. 14. Defendant Martin was a decision-maker as to Plaintiff’s compensation, Plaintiff’s job duties, and the termination of Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant Martin had discretion over Plaintiff’s payroll and overtime compensation. Defendant Martin works both directly and indirectly in the interest of Defendant Pembrooke and was in a supervisory position over Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s employment. 15. Defendant Martin is an “employer” within the definition of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). Defendant Martin is governed by and subject to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 204 and § 207.
16. Defendant Martin can be served with process by delivering a copy of the Summons and Complaint to Defendant Martin, personally, at his place of employment, at 1742 Caswell Parkway, Marietta, Georgia 30060.
IV. Facts
17. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants within the past three years. 18. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on June 23, 2007 as a Security Guard. At the time of his termination on July 17, 2013, Plaintiff held the position of Assistant Manager. 19. Plaintiff’s every day job duties included monitoring the front desk, showing rooms, general office work, and providing security to the property. 20. Plaintiff’s primary tasks did not require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
21. Plaintiff worked an average of fifty (50) hours per work week and was not paid an overtime differential. 22. Plaintiff was paid at the rate of approximately $14.00 per hour. 23. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff complained to Defendant Martin that he was not paid time and a half for hours he worked over forty in a work week. 24. Plaintiff was also on-call 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. 25. Plaintiff was required to assist with on-site emergencies multiple times a week and was not compensated for time he worked after-hours when an emergency arose. 26. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was not paid the overtime wage differential required by FLSA §7, 29 U.S.C. §207 on the occasions that Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.
V. Violation of the Overtime Wage Requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
27. Defendants have violated FLSA §7, 29 U.S.C. §207, by failing to pay overtime wages for time that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek. 28. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff to routinely work more than forty (40) hours per week without overtime compensation. 29. Defendants’ actions, policies and/or practices violate the FLSA’s overtime requirement by regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff at the required overtime rate. 30. Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact that they failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. 31. Defendants failed to accurately report, record and/or preserve records of hours worked by Plaintiff, and thus has failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of their employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of the FLSA. 32. Defendants’ conduct was willful and in bad faith. 33. Pursuant to FLSA §16, 29 U.S.C. §216, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover overtime wage differential, liquidated damages in an equal amount, attorneys’ fees, and the costs of this litigation.
VII. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: (A) Grant Plaintiff a trial by jury as to all triable issues of fact; (B) Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA §7, 29 U.S.C. §207, FLSA § 6, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), liquidated damages as provided by 29 U.S.C. §216, pre-judgment interest on unpaid wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216, and court costs, expert witness fees, reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided under FLSA §16 and all other remedies allowed under the FLSA; and, (C) Grant declaratory judgment declaring that Plaintiff’s rights have been violated; (D) Award Plaintiff such further and additional relief as may be just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted the 1st day of November, 2013.
