Case 3:13-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10

Transcription

1 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Renee Wheeler, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, V. Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. November 14, 2013 COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought on behalf of all Case Managers employed by Defendant Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc. (hereinafter Crump ). Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff Wheeler, and other similarly situated Case Managers, overtime wages as required by federal and state overtime laws. 2. Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former Case Managers of Defendant who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. 216(b) (the Collective Action Class ), that they are (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for all overtime hours worked by them, as required by law, and (ii) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. 1

2 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 2 of Plaintiff Wheeler further brings a cause of action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of herself and a class of current and former Case Managers of Defendant employed within the State of Connecticut (the Connecticut Class ) alleging that they are entitled to back wages from Defendant for all overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay and an award of liquidated damages, plus the cost of litigation and reasonable attorneys fees as required by the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ( CMWA ) (Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-58, et seq.). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 5. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C since it is so related to their FLSA claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy. 6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(c) because the acts or omissions giving rise to claims in this Complaint took place in this judicial district. 7. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to Connecticut s long-arm statute because it transacts business in the State of Connecticut, it enters into employment contracts with the Case Managers, including Plaintiff Wheeler, and its conduct in violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act is tortuous as that term is defined under the long arm statute. 2

3 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 3 of 10 THE PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Wheeler is an individual residing within this judicial district. She worked for defendant from approximately September 2006 to July During that time, plaintiff held the position of Case Manager. She worked at defendant s Farmington, Connecticut office. In this position, plaintiff routinely worked hours a week, or more, though she was not paid for all the overtime hours she worked. 9. Defendant Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Pennsylvania. Its principal office is located at 4135 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In this Complaint, Crump refers (unless otherwise stated) to the named defendant and all successor, predecessor, subsidiary and related entities to which these allegations pertain. 10. Crump is an employer within the meaning of the FLSA and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. 11. Crump was the employer of plaintiff and all other Case Managers in the various states in which they work, including Connecticut, because it had the power to hire and fire those employees, it supervised and controlled their work schedules and conditions of employment, it had the authority to set their rates and methods of payment, and it maintained their employment records. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. Renee Wheeler began working for Crump in September 2006 as a Case Manager. 13. Wheeler was classified as non-exempt from the overtime provisions of state and federal law, and was told that she was eligible to receive payment for her overtime hours. 3

4 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 4 of When Wheeler worked, she was logged into various Crump computer systems and logged off of those systems when she finished her workday. 15. At the end of every work day, Wheeler entered her start and stop times (including lunch breaks) into a time keeping system which then calculated the number of hours she worked. 16. That time keeping system was a company-wide system and was available for viewing by Crump s management team. 17. At the end of each work week, Wheeler submitted her hours electronically to her supervisor for payment. 18. The workload assigned to Wheeler was so great that it could not reasonably be performed in 40 hours and in fact required overtime hours to keep up. 19. Crump was aware that plaintiff was assigned more work than could be completed in 40 hours. 20. Many times, Wheeler worked beyond 40 hours each week, sometimes working as many as 50 to On weeks in which Wheeler worked more than 40 hours per week, Wheeler s supervisor either approved or denied her overtime hours and would change her time entries in the system so as to pay her for fewer overtime hours than she actually worked. Sometimes, she was not approved for any of the overtime hours she worked and was only paid for 40 hours. 22. On several occasions, Wheeler met with her supervisor to discuss the amount of overtime hours she was working and to ask to be paid for all of her overtime. Her supervisor told 4

5 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 5 of 10 her that he could not approve all of her time due to a direction from the management team above him. 23. Crump had constructive knowledge, through its computer systems and through the observations of its managers and supervisors, that Wheeler was working more hours than she was being paid for. 24. Despite this knowledge, Crump willfully and systematically altered the time records of Wheeler and other Case Managers and willfully failed to pay all overtime hours they worked. 25. There are other Case Managers around the country at Crump s various offices who are also classified as non-exempt and who are not being paid for all overtime hours despite Defendant s knowledge of the actual hours they work. THE NATIONWIDE COLLECTIVE ACTION 26. Plaintiff Wheeler brings the first cause of action on behalf of herself and all other Crump Case Managers who have worked for defendant at its various locations. 27. Plaintiff brings this count under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff and the other Case Managers are similarly situated in that they are all subject to Crump s common plan or practice of not paying them for all overtime hours worked because Crump manipulated their hours recorded in its payroll system to reflect that the Case Managers worked less hours of overtime than the ones they in fact worked, despite the fact that Crump was aware that overtime hours were being worked. 5

6 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 6 of 10 THE CONNECTICUT RULE 23 CLASS 28. Plaintiff Wheeler brings the second cause of action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for herself and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who have worked for defendant as Case Managers in Connecticut between November 8, 2011 and the date of final judgment in this matter. 29. As to plaintiff s claims for money damages, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat et seq., Wheeler sues on behalf of herself and all other members of the above-defined Connecticut class. Class certification for these Connecticut law claims is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) because all the requirements of the Rules are met. 30. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are over 40 Case Managers who have worked for defendant in Connecticut during the period of the claim. 31. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether or not the putative class members worked overtime but were not paid overtime in violation of Connecticut law. 32. The named plaintiff s claims are typical of those of the class members. Plaintiff s claims encompass the challenged practices and course of conduct of defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff s legal claims are based on the same legal theories as the claims of the putative class members. The legal issues as to which state laws are violated by such conduct apply equally to plaintiff and to the class. 33. The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The plaintiff s claims are not antagonistic to those of the putative class and she has hired counsel skilled in the prosecution of class actions. 6

7 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 7 of Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. These common questions of law include but are not limited to i. whether Defendant manipulates the time records of the putative class to have them reflect less overtime hours worked than what they actually worked, ii. iii. whether Defendant s conduct was wilful, whether Defendant acted in good faith, whether the putative class worked overtime that was recorded in Defendant s records that Defendant failed to pay. 35. This proposed class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, protects the rights of each class member and maximizes recovery to them. 36. Class certification for these state law claims is appropriate under Rule 23(a) for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 13 above. Class certification for these state law claims also is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), because all the requirements of the rule are met, in that defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class when it classified the positions of Case Manager as exempt, so that it is appropriate to issue final injunctive relief to the class as a whole. 7

8 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 8 of 10 FIRST COUNT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 37. As a result of the above described conduct, Crump willfully failed and refused to pay Wheeler and other Case Managers for all of the overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. 38. Wheeler and other Case Managers are entitled to recover as damages back-pay for all overtime hours worked, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs. SECOND COUNT THE CONNECTICUT MINIMUM WAGE ACT 39. As a result of the above described conduct, Crump unreasonably, arbitrarily and/or in bad faith failed and refused to pay Wheeler and other Case Managers for all of the overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act C.G.S. Sec , et seq. 40. Wheeler and other Case Managers are entitled to recover as damages back-pay for all overtime hours worked, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs. 8

9 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 9 of 10 DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, prays for the following relief 1. Unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act; 2. Liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 3. Penalty damages under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act; 4. An order conditionally certifying the collective action and directing Crump to supply the names and home addresses of the similarly situated Case Managers to plaintiff s counsel so that a notice can be sent to them inviting them to join this action; 5. An order designating Plaintiff as a Class Representative, counsel of record as Class Counsel, and certifying the Connecticut Rule 23 class; 6. Interest and costs; 7. Attorneys fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act; 8. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury by all issues so triable. 9

10 Case 313-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 10 of 10 Renee Wheeler, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals By /s/ Richard E. Hayber Richard E. Hayber Hayber Law Firm, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT Fed No. ct11629 (860) (860) (facsimile) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective Actions 10