IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARILYN FRANKLIN, JENNIFER BIERIE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(B), Plaintiffs, v.
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-3194
HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P. AND COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Marilyn Franklin and Jennifer Bierie individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated file this Original Complaint and in support state the following: I. 1.
SUMMARY
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to pay for totally
uninterrupted meal breaks. Defendants, however, illegally failed to pay their direct patient care employees for meal breaks because they instituted policies, practices, and procedures that created continuous interruptions during Plaintiffs and the Class Members’ meal breaks or failed to relieve them from duty during their meal breaks. Despite instituting these policies that caused continuous interruptions, Defendants refused to compensate their direct employees with overtime compensation for working during these compensable meal breaks when Plaintiffs and the Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Defendants’ actions in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members overtime pay for these interrupted meal breaks constituted a willful violation of the FLSA.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 1
II. 2.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Marilyn Franklin is an individual who lives in this District and has
consented to join this lawsuit. Her consent to participate in this case is attached as Exhibit A. 3.
Plaintiff Jennifer Bierie is an individual who lives in this District and has consented
to join this lawsuit. Her consent to participate in this case is attached as Exhibit B. 4.
The Plaintiffs and “Potential Plaintiffs” are Defendants’ current and former hourly-
paid nurses. 5.
Defendant HCA Management Services, L.P. is a Delaware Corporation and can be
served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136. 6.
Defendant Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas is a Texas Corporation doing
business in Irving, Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136. III. 7.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiffs have asserted a claim
arising under federal law. 8.
Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because the events forming the
basis of the suit occurred in this District and one or more of the parties reside in this District. IV. 9.
COVERAGE FACTS
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 Potential Plaintiffs. 10.
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).
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 2
11.
At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises within the
meaning of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r). 12.
At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises 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 enterprises have 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 and in that said enterprises have had and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated). 13.
At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs 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. V. 14.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendants are involved in the business of operating hospitals throughout the
country. Defendants earn over $500,000.00 per year in gross sales. 15.
Plaintiffs worked as nurses at Defendants’ Las Colinas Medical Center within the
last three years. 16.
As nurses, Plaintiffs’ and the Potential Plaintiffs’ primary responsibility was direct
patient care, including monitoring patients, interacting with a patient’s visitors, and responding to emergency situations. 17.
Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were nonexempt employees and were paid on
an hourly basis. However, Plaintiffs did not record and were not paid for their actual hours of work because they were not paid for working through their meal breaks. Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were instructed to show they took a meal break by clocking out and clocking PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 3
back in at the end of the break, but they were not relieved from duty during this period. Defendants required, suffered, and permitted them to work through their meal breaks or interrupted the breaks such that they did not have a bona fide meal period. If Plaintiffs or Potential Plaintiffs neglected to “show” a meal period, their supervisors would alter their time to show a meal period was taken. 18.
Plaintiffs were regularly scheduled to work at least 40 hours (or more) in a given
week, even with the meal period deducted each day. Consequently, the additional work performed by Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs would be time worked in excess of 40 hours per week and should have been paid at an overtime rate. Plaintiffs were not paid overtime pay for the time worked during meal periods in weeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours a week. 19.
Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs are entitled to receive overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, including compensable time for working during and through meal breaks. Defendants were aware of the FLSA’s overtime requirements, but chose not to pay Plaintiff and the Potential Plaintiffs overtime pay for interrupted meal breaks. Defendants knew Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs were required to continue handling patients and monitoring them while they were clocked out for lunch, but did not remedy the situation. 20.
When Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, Defendants did not pay them one and one-half times their regularly hourly rate for meal breaks. This time is compensable under the FLSA because (1) Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were not completely relieved from their duties during meal breaks; (2) they were interrupted with work duties during their meal breaks; or (3) they entirely skipped their meal breaks due to work demands. 21.
Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal
pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime with respect to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs. VI.
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 4
22.
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 13 – 21 as if stated fully herein.
23.
Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs performed the same or similar job duties as
one another as described in the preceding paragraphs in that the Potential Plaintiffs were other hourly employees responsible for direct patient care. Further, Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were paid under the same pay plan that failed to pay them overtime pay for interrupted meal breaks. Accordingly, the Potential Plaintiffs were victimized by Defendants’ unlawful pattern and practices and are similarly situated to Plaintiffs in terms of job duties and pay provisions. 24.
Defendants’ failure to pay overtime or minimum wage compensation at the rates
required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and do not depend on the personal circumstances of the Potential Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ experience is typical of the experience of the Potential Plaintiffs. All Potential Plaintiffs, regardless of their precise job requirements or rates of pay, are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, including specifically one-and-one half times their regular rate during interrupted meal breaks. Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. The questions of law and fact are common to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs. 25.
Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal
pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime and minimum compensation with respect to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 26.
During the relevant period, Defendants have violated and are violating the
provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-7, and 215(a)(2), by employing
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 5
employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA as aforesaid, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees for their work in excess of forty hours per week at rates no less than one-and-a-half times the regular rates of pay for which they were employed.. Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs in accordance with the law. VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT 27.
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 Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due to Plaintiffs (and those who may join the suit); and b.
For an Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) the costs of
this action; c.
For an Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) attorneys’
d.
For and Order awarding Plaintiffs (and those who may join in the suit) pre-
fees;
judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; and e.
For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 6
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ J. Derek Braziel___________ J. DEREK BRAZIEL Attorney in Charge
Texas Bar No. 00793380 JAY FORESTER Texas Bar No. 24087532 Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com
JACK SIEGEL Texas Bar No. 24070621 SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy. Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 (844) Low-Wage phone (844) Low-Wage fax www.siegellawgroup.biz
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page - 7