WWW.THESIS.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Thesis, documentation, books
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 ||

«IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION WILLIAM JOHNSON, TYRONE FISHER, BRIAN GUNTER, LESTER MAYO, ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

39. Managers and Supervisors sometimes approach Warehouse Workers during Defendants’ designated break period to give them written warnings and assign disciplinary points to them for filing to maintain the Defendants’ productivity goals during the shift.

40. Because the Defendants required Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers to clock-in and out, complete work assignments, turn in equipment and undergo a security screening process during the Defendants’ designated break period, the Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers did not receive thirty (30) minutes within which to eat a meal.

–  –  –

41. Because Defendants' policies and practices required Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers to leave their personal belongings, such as their cell phones, in their vehicles, Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers are unable to engage in any personal activities during the security screening process.

42. The Defendants’ mandatory security screening process is integral and indispensable to the principal job activities of Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers.

Defendants do not allow Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers to leave their Fulfillment Centers until they have successfully completed the entire screening process. Defendants' mandatory security screening process is solely for the benefit of Defendants and is designed to prevent employees from stealing merchandise contained within the Fulfillment Center.

43. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers for the time spent during the designated break periods.

44. As a result of the time spent clocking in and out, going through the Defendants’ screening process, and walking to and from the break room or their vehicles, Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers typically received less than eighteen (18) minutes to eat during their break.

45. As a result of Defendants policies and practices, Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers were unable to pursue their mealtime adequately and comfortably, and they were engaged in the performance of duties predominantly for Defendants’ benefit.

–  –  –

46. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth herein verbatim.

–  –  –

47. At all times relevant herein, each of the Defendants was an “enterprise” within the meaning of § 3(r) and § 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) & (s).

48. At all times relevant herein, each of the Defendants was an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(d), and collectively the Defendants were “joint employers” of the Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers as that term is defined under 29 C.F.R.§791.2.

49. The annual gross sales volume of the Defendants’ business was in excess of $500,000.00 per annum at all times material hereto. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked in interstate commerce so as to fall within the protections of the FLSA.

50. Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers were employees of Defendants for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act during all times relevant to this Complaint. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers at the rate of one-and-a-half times their normal rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek as required by section 7(a) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

51. The time spent by Plaintiffs completing their task and securing Defendants’ goods, clocking in and out, and going through Defendants’ security screening processes during Defendants’ designated break periods is compensable “work” as that term is defined by the FLSA.

52. The breaks taken by Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers were compensable time under the rest period provisions of the FLSA, including 29 C.F.R. §785.18.

53. Defendants mischaracterized the designated break periods they provided to Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers as non-compensable Bona Fide Meal Periods, which,

–  –  –

pursuant to 29 C.F.R, §715.19, requires that employees be completely relieved from duty for purposes of eating regular meals for a thirty-minute time period.

54. Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers for overtime work and for “off the clock hours” as required by the FLSA willful.

55. Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers are entitled to an award of unpaid overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours worked in a workweek, pursuant to section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

56. Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers are entitled to liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid compensation due to them under the FLSA, pursuant to section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

57. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

–  –  –

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs William Johnson, Tyrone Fisher, Brian Gunter, Lester Mayo, Jeffrey Hope, Latoshia Mack, and Christina Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all other

similarly situated individuals, demand:

a. Certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all

–  –  –

d. Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action; and e. All such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

–  –  –

Plaintiffs William Johnson, Tyrone Fisher, Brian Gunter, Lester Mayo, Jeffrey Hope, Latoshia Mack, and Christina Thomas hereby demand a trial by jury.

–  –  –



Pages:     | 1 ||


Similar works:

«INNOCENTI WORKING PAPERS No.93 WHEN THE INVISIBLE HAND ROCKS THE CRADLE: NEW ZEALAND CHILDREN IN A TIME OF CHANGE Alison J. Blaiklock, Cynthia A. Kiro, Michael Belgrave, Will Low, Eileen Davenport, Ian B. Hassall Innocenti Working Paper No.93 When the Invisible Hand Rocks the Cradle: New Zealand Children in a Time of Change Alison J. Blaiklock 1 Cynthia A. Kiro 2 Michael Belgrave 3 Will Low4 Eileen Davenport 5 Ian B. Hassall 6  July 2002  Honorary Research Fellow, School of Social and...»

«Di Ma Phone: (313) 583-6737 Fax: (313) 593-4256 Email: dmadma@umich.edu CIS 142 Web: www.madi.net University of Michigan-Dearborn 4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48128 RESEARCH INTERESTS Computer/Network Security & Privacy, Data and Storage Security, and Applied Cryptography EDUCATION Ph.D in Computer Science 2009 University of California, Irvine Dissertation topic: Intrusion Resilience for Unattended Devices Advisor: Prof. Gene Tsudik M.E. in Computer Engineering 2000 Nanyang Technological...»

«Becoming Fully Hopi: The Role of Hopi Language in the Contemporary Lives Of Hopi YouthA Hopi Case Study of Language Shift and Vitality Item type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Nicholas, Sheilah Ernestine Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected...»

«The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Evaluation and Application of Polynomial Texture Mapping (PTM) in the area of Shoe/Tire Impression Evidence Author(s): James S. Hamiel, John S. Yoshida Document No.: 240591 Date Received: December 2012 Award Number: 2004-IJ-CX-K008 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made...»

«Customer Number: Fax to New Accounts: 727-571-9168 Reseller Credit Application Mail to: 5350 Tech Data Drive, Clearwater, FL 33760, Attn: New Accounts Mailstop A3-20 A refundable New Account Application charge of $100 will be charged prior to processing your application. The $100 New Account Application charge will be fully refundable to customers whose accounts show net sales of $5000 of more in billed product during the first 90 calendar days of opening an account. (Some restrictions may...»

«Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 6.5 im Überblick ©Copyright SparxSystems GmbH 2007 Enterprise Architect 7.0 MDG Integration, Visual Studio 2003 Visual Studio 2005 MDG Plugins Eclipse Doors Team Foundation Server Sparks www.sparxsystems.at Inhalt Einleitung Was ist Enterprise Architect? Was unterscheidet Architect von anderen UML Werkzeugen? Wie verbreitet ist Enterprise Architect heute? Enterprise Architect – Funktionen im Überblick Was ist neu in Enterprise Architect 6.5? Einige...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.thesis.xlibx.info - Thesis, documentation, books

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.