Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CLASS ACTION
No.
COMPLAINT FOR WAGES
Plaintiffs,
JURY OF TWELVE (12) DEMANDED
13
v.
14
15
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, challenging Defendants practice of
classifying its employees as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime wages
COMPLAINT - 1
for their hours worked over 40 in each week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., Washingtons Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.130(1), and
4
5
6
2.
wages, return of wages unlawfully rebated, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs.
Plaintiff and the Class also seek to enjoin Defendant from continuing violations.
II. PARTIES
9
10
4.
11
and worked for Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. in King County, Washington and
12
13
14
5.
and does business in King County, Washington, and within this Court's jurisdiction.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
16
17
6.
This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as
18
7.
19
8.
Venue for this action properly lies in the Western District of Washington,
20
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), because the Defendant does business in this judicial district.
9.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under the
22
Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 and Washingtons Wage Rebate Act, RCW
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 2
IV. FACTS
Factual Background.
10.
Defendant owns and operates valet parking services in Seattle, San Francisco,
Los Angeles, San Diego, Washington, DC, and in Manhattan and Brooklyn in New York
State. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to add additional business locations in
other states.
11.
Defendant as Agents. In that capacity, they were hired to park cars for Defendants customers
at rented lots, return parked cars to customers, and sell additional services such as filling up
10
11
12
the gas tanks, washing the cars, and selling monthly parking services.
12.
Defendant has all of its Agents sign Contractor Agreements that improperly
13
13.
14
14.
15
16
17
15.
Defendant paid each of its Agents an hourly rate, with incentives for parking
18
and delivering cars, and selling additional services. Defendant does not pay its Agents an
19
20
16.
21
on the following factors: Agents do not have their own business licenses or tax identification
22
numbers; Defendant provide training and equipment to Agents; Agents do not have their own
23
businesses or insurance coverage; Agents provided the very service that Defendant was in
24
business to provide (parking cars for customers); Agents provide services directly to
25
Defendants customers; Defendant maintains direct authority and control over the Agents
work; Defendant pays its Agents by the hour; Defendant requires Agents to perform the
COMPLAINT - 3
parking services himself or herself; Agents are required to work set shifts as devised by
Defendant; and, at least for a portion of the class period, Agents were required to wear
17.
18.
Defendant paid Agents their regular rate and earned incentives for each hour
of work, but failed to pay the lawful overtime rate for their hours worked over 40 in one work
week.
19.
10
November 7, 2014 through July 31, 2015. She provided valet parking services to clients in
11
12
20.
At the start of her employment, Plaintiff earned an hourly rate of $14 per hour
13
for parking cars while employed with Defendant, with an additional $2 for every car parked or
14
15
21.
For the first three or four months of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant,
16
she regularly worked 50 to 60 hours per week. She was paid the rate of $14 per hour for her
17
hours worked, including her overtime hours. Defendant did not pay her an overtime rate for
18
19
22.
20
Agents to $15 per hour. Beginning in January of 2015, Plaintiff worked less overtime than she
21
had in the preceding months due to attendance in college, but continued to work some
22
overtime during this time. Again, Defendant failed to pay her the legal overtime rate for her
23
24
25
23.
on the following factors: Plaintiff did not have her own business licenses or tax identification
numbers; Defendant provided training and equipment to Plaintiff; Plaintiff did not have her
COMPLAINT - 4
own businesses or insurance coverage; Plaintiff provided the very service that Defendant was
in business to provide (parking cars for customers); Plaintiff provided services directly to
Defendants customers; Defendant maintained direct authority and control over Plaintiffs
work; Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly rate; Defendant required Plaintiff to perform the
parking services herself; Plaintiff was required to work set shifts as dictated by Defendant;
24.
25.
Upon information and belief, putative class members worked significant hours
9
10
11
12
13
14
of overtime.
26.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and putative class members the proper
Putative class members are employees for purposes of the FLSA and
Upon information and belief, Defendant follows uniform practices with respect
15
to these employment policies and procedures at all locations, including having Agents sign
16
the same unlawful agreements, and failed to pay similarly situated employees throughout the
17
state of Washington and nationwide the lawful overtime rate for their overtime hours worked.
18
19
29.
Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
20
30.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
21
22
31.
23
All hourly paid individuals who worked for Defendant providing valet parking
services from the commencement of Defendants operations through the present.
24
25
32.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that the definition of the class
33.
1
2
Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class without discovery of
defendants books and records but estimates the class to exceed 250 individuals.
34.
There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over
any questions affecting individual members only. These factual and legal questions include
the existence and legality of Defendants policy with respect to payment of overtime, as well
7
8
9
35.
Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
36.
The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class
class.
10
in that Plaintiff was denied mandatory overtime wages as a result of Defendants practices
11
and policies. This is the predominate issue which pertains to the claims of each and every
12
class member.
13
14
15
37.
The class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as her
16
interests are in alignment with those of the entire class, i.e., to prove and then eradicate
17
18
39.
Counsel for Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the class. Such
19
counsel is experienced with employment/class litigation and has previously served as class
20
21
40.
Plaintiff and the class she represents have suffered and will continue to suffer
22
irreparable damage from the illegal policy, practice and custom regarding Defendants pay
23
practices.
24
41.
25
COMPLAINT - 6
42.
Plaintiff, as well as the individuals she represents, was denied overtime wages
as a result of Defendants pay practices. This violation was intended by Defendant and was
willfully done.
4
5
43.
6
7
44.
Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
45.
Pursuant to CR 23, Plaintiff brings this class action on her own behalf and on
9
10
behalf of all employees similarly situated (Class Members or Class) pursuant to RCW
49.46 and RCW 49.52.
11
46.
12
All Agents who worked for Defendant in the State of Washington from the
commencement of its operations in Washington through the present.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47.
joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed
thirty to fifty Agents in Washington during the proposed class period.
48.
Common Questions of Law and Fact. The questions of law are the same for
all of the class members, namely, whether class members were misclassified for purposes of
calculating overtime pay and employment benefits, whether employees were subject to other
wage and hour violations, and Defendants failure to pay overtime wages to class members
was willful entitling the class to double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070.
49.
of the class, namely, that she worked for Defendant, was misclassified as an independent
contractor, and was not paid overtime pay for her overtime hours.
50.
Pascual will adequately represent and protect the interests of the class because she has
COMPLAINT - 7
retained competent and experienced class counsel and none of her interests in the litigation
individual members of the class against Defendant on the class-based wage and hour claims
and other state law claims would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and
incompatible standards of treatment for wage and hour purposes of the employees under
Washingtons laws. Defendant has acted and continues to act in a manner that is generally
applicable to all members of the class making final injunctive relief appropriate prohibiting
continued wage and hour violations. The questions of law and fact common to all members of
10
the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the class because
11
the members of the class were subjected to the same practices of Defendant, and a class action
12
is the superior method to adjudicate this controversy. Upon information and belief, there are
13
14
52.
15
16
17
A.
18
Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
53.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay
19
when they worked more than forty hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
20
21
54.
22
55.
Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged by Defendants violations
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 8
B.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay
when the employees worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of Washingtons
Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged by Defendants violations
C.
8
9
10
11
12
employees overtime rates for their overtime hours is a violation of Washingtons Wage
Rebate Act, RCW 49.52 et seq.
59.
Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged by Defendants violations
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
B.
20
21
22
C.
23
24
25
D.
COMPLAINT - 9
E.
2
3
F.
Judgment against Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. for wages due to
G.
H.
10
11
I.
12
USC 216(b), RCW 49.46.090, RCW 49.48.030, RCW 49.52.070, and the
13
14
J.
15
16
K.
17
L.
18
19
20
and
M.
For such other relief in law or equity, which the Court finds appropriate,
just or equitable.
21
22
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 10
2
3
By s/Anne-Marie E. Sargent
Anne-Marie E. Sargent, WSBA No. 27160
Connor & Sargent PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104
Email: aes@cslawfirm.net
Telephone: (206) 654-4011
4
5
6
7
8
12
By s/Stephen P. Connor
Stephen P. Connor, WSBA No. 14305
Connor & Sargent PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104
Email: steve@cslawfirm.net
Telephone: (206) 264-1818
13
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 11