united states district court district of connecticut … · 2019-12-27 · hy’s livery service,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MEHDI BELGADA, HORMOZ : CIVIL ACTION NO. AKHUNDZADEH, and ADANIEL : DZIEKAN, individually and on behalf : of all other similarly situated individuals : Plaintiffs : : v. : : HY’S LIVERY SERVICE, INC., : ROBERT LEVINE, MATTHEW : LEVINE, and SHELLEY LEVINE : Defendants : JANUARY 31, 2018

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION

1. Employers in Connecticut must provide employees at least a thirty (30) minute meal

break and must compensate employees for meal breaks where an employer’s operations

are of a “continuous nature” and requires its employees to be “available to respond to

urgent or unusual conditions at all times.” Conn. Agencies Reg. Sec. 31-51ii. Federal

law requires employers to pay employees for their meal breaks “during which a worker

performs activities predominantly for the benefit of the employer.” Fair Labor Standards

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”); 29 C.F.R Sec. 785.19. Reich v. SNET, 121 F.3d

58, 64 (2d Cir. 1997). These rules protect a worker’s right to eat regular meals during

their work day and prevent wage theft when workers’ meal breaks are spent performing

duties for their employer.

2. Defendants, Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. and its owners, automatically deduct one hour per

day from the work time of their Chauffeurs as meal time, when in fact those workers do

not actually take bona fide meal breaks. Defendants rules and procedures imposed

Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 of 16

2

restrictions and responsibilities on their Chauffeurs during their work days which were so

burdensome that taking meal breaks was virtually impossible. Defendants also refused to

correct their Chauffeur’s pay when they were put on notice that their Chauffeurs had not

taken bona fide meal breaks.

3. Defendants’ intentional violations of state and federal wage laws have deprived Plaintiffs

and the putative class of hundreds of thousands of dollars of unpaid wages and overtime

pay and requires them to pay damages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, attorneys’

fees and costs.

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Mehdi Belgada (“Belgada”) is an individual residing in Milford, Connecticut.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Belgada was an employee of Defendants, as that

term is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Connecticut Wage Act

(“CWA”).

5. Plaintiff Hormoz Akhundzada (“Akhundzada”) is an individual residing in Bridgeport,

Connecticut. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Akhundzada was an employee of

Defendants, as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.

6. Plaintiff Daniel Dziekan (“Dziekan”) is an individual residing in Milford, Connecticut.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dziekan was an employee of Defendants, as that

term is defined in the FLSA and CWA. (Belgada, Akhundzada, and Dziekan collectively

are referred to as the “Plaintiffs”.)

7. Defendant Hy’s Livery Services, Inc. (“Hy’s”), is a Connecticut corporation with a

principal place of business located at 480 Island Lane, West Haven, Connecticut. At all


3

times relevant to this Complaint, Hy’s was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated individuals, as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.

8. Defendant Robert Levine (“R. Levine”) is the President and an owner of Hy’s. At all

times relevant to this Complaint, R. Levine had the authority to set the hours of

employment, maintain employment records, to direct the work and to determine the rate

and method of payment of wages of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals.

R. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages as

set forth below. Accordingly, R. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated individuals as that term is defined in the FLSA and CWA.

9. Defendant Matthew Levine (“M. Levine”) is the Vice President and an owner of Hy’s.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, M. Levine had the authority to set the hours of



M. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages

as set forth below. Accordingly, M. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other


10. Defendant Shelley Levine (“S. Levine”) is the Secretary and an owner of Hy’s. At all

times relevant to this Complaint, S. Levine had the authority to set the hours of



R. Levine’s exercise of that authority was the direct cause of Hy’s failure to pay wages as


4

set forth below. Accordingly, S. Levine was the employer of Plaintiffs and all other


III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

12. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ CWA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367

since they are so related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case or

controversy.

13. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts or omissions

giving rise to the claims in this Complaint took place in this district.

IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

14. Employers in Connecticut must pay employees their agreed upon rate for each hour

worked, and must pay employees one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all

hours worked over forty per week. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-68, 31-71a, 31-72, et seq.

(“CWA”). 29 U.S.C. § 207, et seq. (“FLSA”).

15. Employers must provide employees a meal break of at least thirty consecutive minutes

each day; where an employer’s operations are of a “continuous nature” and require

employees to be “available to respond to urgent or unusual conditions at all times” such

meal breaks must be compensated. Conn. Agencies Reg. § 31-51ii.

16. Employers must pay employees for their meal breaks “during which a worker performs

activities predominantly for the benefit of the employer.” Reich v. SNET, 121 F.3d 58, 64

(2d Cir. 1997); Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”); 29 C.F.R §

785.19.


5

17. “Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee

breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely

relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals.” C.F.R. § 785.19.

18. Employers must count as hours worked time away from the premises “if the employer

knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed.” C.F.R. § 785.12.

19. An employer must “advise his employees in writing, at the time of hiring, of the rate of

remuneration, hours of employment and wage payments schedules, and (…) make

available to his employees, any employment practices and policies or change therein with

regard to wages (…) and comparable matters.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71f.

20. Employers must keep true and accurate records of employees’ hours worked for each

employee. 29 U.S.C § 211(c), Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-60-12.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

21. Defendant Hy’s is a Connecticut corporation providing “airport limo service to all

airports in New England, Nationwide and Worldwide …”

www.hyslimo.com/services/airport-limo-service/

22. Hy’s has employed Chauffeurs throughout its existence to pick up, and transport its

clients to New England airports.

23. Hy’s pays its Chauffeurs on an hourly basis, usually $11 per hour, and tracks their time to

the nearest one hundredth of an hour.

24. Hy’s requires its Chauffeurs to report to work, clock in, pick up a limousine, inspect it,

make sure it is fully fueled and stocked and then drive to pick up its clients and deliver


6

them to the airport. At the end of the day, Hy’s requires its Chauffeurs to return to the

premises, drop off the vehicle and clock out.

25. On or about December 30, 2015, Defendants implemented a new meal break policy for

their Chauffeurs, stating as follows:

As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016, all Chauffeurs will be given a 1 hour, unpaid meal break every day, while on the road at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation #785.19. If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was deducted, please let me know and it will be adjusted. Also, if you have questions, please come and see me. Please print and sign below that you received and understand this memo.

See Exhibit A (emphasis added)1.

26. C.F.R. § 785.19 Meal., the regulation referenced in Defendant’s policy, sets forth the

requirements of bona fide meal periods as follows:

Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating (emphasis added).

27. Accordingly, Defendants, who required their Chauffeurs to sign the 12/30/15 Memo and

collected the signatures, agreed to pay their Chauffeurs wages for their work when they

were not “completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals.”

1 See Exhibit A, Zubrinsky Memo dated 12/30/15. Chauffeur Manager Dennis Martinez contemporaneously communicated the same policy to employees by email stating they would be required to sign, attached hereto as Exhibit B.


7

28. From January 3, 2016, to the present, and on a continuing basis, Defendants

automatically deducted a one-hour unpaid meal period per day from the pay of each of

Defendants’ Chauffeurs, purporting the deduction to be for an unpaid bona fide meal

break.

29. However, Defendants never told Plaintiffs and the putative class the “time decided by

dispatch” when they could take their breaks as agreed upon.

30. Defendants assigned duties to their Chauffeurs, the nature of which was “continuous” in

that it “requires that employees be available to respond to urgent or unusual

conditions at all times.”

31. Defendants further restricted and confined Chauffeurs’ meal break time on pain of

discipline by the implementation and enforcement of various written rules, procedures,

and through the continuous nature of the work which Defendant knew or should have had

knowledge, including but not limited to the following:

a. Defendants defined their Chauffeurs’ meal break “procedure” as follows:

If you must leave your customer’s location for any reason whatsoever you must follow the appropriate procedure. First of all, you should never leave a client’s location until at least twenty minutes have passed since you dropped them off. This confirms that the client is in the correct location, and that nothing additional is needed from inside the vehicle. Next, as quickly as possible you should proceed to the nearest location for you to obtain food and/or a restroom facility, etc. Then, immediately return to where the customer is supposed to meet you and consume the food there so that you will be ready should your client need you. Always remember that certain foods have strong odors and that the vehicle must always be sanitized prior to picking up the client. Never transfer the smell of food into the vehicle. You are never to stop while the client is in the car. (emphasis added)


8

b. Defendants required Chauffeurs to be “available to service their clients at all

times….If you are “ON DUTY” you are available for the day (minimum 12

hours)”;

c. Defendants define “on-duty” time as follows:

• Chauffeurs who are engaged in waiting for or meeting clients at an airport, or any other location.

• Chauffeurs who are operating any vehicle under the direction of their company.

• Any time the Chauffeur is in the presence of a client. • Any time the Chauffeur is being compensated on the companies’

time.

d. Defendants required Chauffeurs to get “coffee, food, etc PRIOR to arriving at

the office for work. Your main objective once you leave the office is to GET

TO YOUR Pickup LOCATION. Chauffeurs who stop somewhere other than

their pickup location while on duty will be disciplined accordingly.” (emphasis in

the original);

e. Defendants prohibited Chauffeurs from eating within vehicles;

f. Defendants required Chauffeurs to arrive fifteen minutes early to assigned

pickups, enforced by GPS monitoring;

g. Defendants required Chauffeurs to stay for twenty minutes after drop-offs,

enforced by GPS monitoring;

h. Defendants required that Chauffeur lunch locations be within two miles of their

next assigned pick up point, enforced by GPS monitoring;

i. Defendants required that Chauffeurs carry smart phones which had to be kept

turned on and with them always;


9

j. Defendants required Chauffeurs to constantly check the websites of the airlines

for the status of the flights of their customers and confirm terminal pick up

locations which were subject to change;

k. Defendants required that Chauffeurs clean and stock the vehicles when clients

were away from the vehicles;

l. Defendants held their Chauffeurs responsible for any damage to Defendants’

vehicles by charging them, regardless of whether the Chauffeur had caused the

damages, thereby conferring significant custodial responsibilities upon their

Chauffeurs;

m. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their Chauffeurs

experience heavy traffic in New York City / near airports, making bona fide meal

periods impossible;

n. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that parking is scarce in New

York City / near airports, making bona fide meal periods impossible; and

o. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known the financial expense of

parking in New York City / near airports is cost-prohibitive for their Chauffeurs.

32. Defendants thus for all practical purposes prevented their Chauffeurs from taking bona

fide meal breaks and benefitted by having their business needs met through the unpaid

work of their Chauffeurs.

33. Defendants still usually and customarily refused paying for “actual hours worked” even

upon being notified by their Chauffeurs that no bona fide meal period was taken,

including but not limited to the following:


10

a. Defendants responded to their Chauffeurs with needless inquiries even though the

Chauffeurs had provided more than adequate information on actual hours worked;

b. Defendants argued that a break could have been taken between drops and pickups,

even when their Chauffeurs notified Defendants of actual hours worked, i.e. the

Chauffeurs were stuck in traffic or put on standby by the dispatcher; and

c. Defendants retaliated against their Chauffeurs who persisted in being paid for

time spent working through unpaid meal breaks by cutting their scheduled hours

and assignments.

34. Defendants conduct in resisting and refusing to pay for actual hours worked is

particularly egregious because they had more than adequate access to information to

make the proper corrections; they could tell when Chauffeurs had not taken bona fide

meal breaks through their log-in policy, and through their smartphone application Livery

Coach, but nevertheless continued to make the automatic deductions in violation of

federal regulations and the agreement.

35. As a result, Defendants deducted approximately one hour per day, or 5-6 hours per week

from the pay of each of their Chauffeurs, for each week that they worked, when under

state and federal law this time should have been paid as compensable work time for

actual hours worked.

36. Defendants usually scheduled their Chauffeurs for twelve (12) hour days – sixty to

seventy-two (60 - 72) hour weeks - but their mealtime hours were automatically and

improperly deducted, and in addition, they were not paid overtime compensation at a rate


11

of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours over 40 per week, as

required by the CWA and FLSA.

VI. COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. The FLSA Class

37. Belgada, Akhundzada, and Dziekan (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of

themselves and all other similarly situated employees, present and former, who were

and/or are affected by the actions, policies and procedures of Hy’s, R. Levine, M. Levine,

and S. Levine (“Defendants”) as described herein.

38. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs bring this action in their individual and

personal capacities, separate and apart from the class claims set forth herein.

39. The FLSA class is defined as follows:

All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as

Chauffeurs from January 3, 2016, through the date of final judgment in this

matter.

40. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend said class definition consistent with information

obtained through discovery.

41. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and those members of the FLSA class who have

filed or will file with the Court their consents to sue. This is an appropriate collective or

representative action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), sometimes referred to as an “opt-in class

action,” in that Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class, are similarly situated.


12

42. Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the provisions

of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees and

former employees in accordance with the provisions of the FLSA.

B. The Connecticut Rule 23 Class

43. Plaintiffs also sue on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Connecticut

class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

44. The Connecticut Class is defined as follows:

All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as

Chauffeurs at any time from January 3, 2016 through the date of final judgment.

45. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend said class definition consistent with information

obtained through discovery.

46. 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.

47. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. On information

and belief, there have been more than fifty (50) Chauffeurs employed by Defendants in

Connecticut during the past two years.

48. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether the putative

class members worked hours for which they were not paid overtime compensation in

violation of Connecticut law, and whether Defendants’ conduct was willful.

49. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class members. The claims of

Plaintiffs encompass the challenged practices and course of conduct of Defendants.

Furthermore, the claims of Plaintiffs are based on the same legal theories as the claims of


13

the putative class members. The legal issues as to the violation of the CWA by

Defendants’ conduct applies equally to Plaintiffs and to the class.

50. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The claims of

Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to those of the putative class and they have hired counsel

skilled in the prosecution of class actions.

51. 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. 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.

VII. COUNT ONE –COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIM UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) FOR VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE FLSA CLASS

52. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ conduct in this regard was a willful violation of the

FLSA, in that Defendants knew or should have known that it was not entitled to

automatically deduct an hour a day as unpaid meal breaks, but did so anyway, and failed

to pay Plaintiffs for that time when in fact no bona fide meal breaks were taken. To the

extent that Plaintiffs had worked 40 hours that week separate and apart from these meal

breaks, this time was compensable overtime under the FLSA.

53. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, and all other members of the FLSA class are entitled to

compensation at one–and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in

excess of forty per week, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs, pursuant to

29 U.S.C. § 216(b).


14

VIII. COUNT TWO – CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE CWA ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CONNECTICUT CLASS

54. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants violated the CWA by automatically deducting an

hour a day from their Chauffeurs’ pay when in fact their Chauffeurs had worked during

their meal breaks.

55. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, and all other members of the Connecticut Class are entitled to

compensation, either at straight time for weeks in which they worked forty or less total

hours, or at one–and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked more

than forty per week, as well as penalty damages, attorneys’ fees, and court costs, pursuant

to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-68.


15

IX. DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated

persons:

a. That, at the earliest possible time, Plaintiffs be allowed to give notice of this collective

action, or that the Court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been

at any time during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit, employed

by Defendants as Chauffeurs. Such notice shall inform them that this civil action has

been filed, the nature of the action, and of their right to join this lawsuit if they believe

they were denied proper wages;

b. Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure on behalf of members of the Connecticut class and the appointment of

Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the class;

c. Unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA;

d. Unpaid overtime wages under the CWA;

e. Withheld wages under the CWA;

f. Liquidated damages under the FLSA;

g. Penalty damages under CWA;

h. Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law;

i. Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit under the FLSA and CWA, including expert fees; and

j. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.


16

X. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals

By: /s/ Richard E. Hayber Richard E. Hayber Hayber Law Firm, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Fed Bar No.: ct11629 (860) 522-8888 telephone (860) 218-9555 facsimile [email protected]

By: /s/ Michael Petela Michael Petela Fed. Bar No. ct28251 The Hayber Law Firm, LLC 900 Chapel Street, Suite 620 New Haven, CT 06510 Fed Bar No. ct28251 (203) 691-6491 (860) 218-9555 (facsimile) [email protected] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs


JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civi l cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the fi l ing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local_ rules of_court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of inittatmg the CIVIi docket sheet. (SEE !NS11WCTIONS ON NEX/" !'AGE OF THIS FORM)

lv,~11/di t~fa-rlWJ~oz Akhundzadeah and Adaniel Dziekan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situtated individuals

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PlAJNTIFF CASES)

( c) Attorneys (Fmn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Richard E. Hayber and Michael Petela The Hayber Law Firm, LLC., 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 522-8888 telephone

DEFENDANTS . . Hy's livery Service, Inc., Robert Levine, Matthew Levine and Shelley Levine

County of Residence o f F irst Listed Defendant

(IN U.S. PLAIN"f'!FF CASES ON/.Y)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE lHE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (![Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ··x" in One Box for Plamtiff

0 I U.S. Government

Plaintiff

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

IV NATURE OF SUIT I CONTRACT

0 I IO Insurance 0 120 Marine 0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 150 Recovery of Overpaymenl

& Enforcement of Judgment 0 151 Medicare Act 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans (Excludes Veterans)

0 l 53 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran 's Benefits

0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 J 90 Other Contract 0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 196 Franchise

l REAL PROPERTY

0 210 Land Condemnation 0 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 290 All Otl1er Real Property

~ 3 Federal Question

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

(Place an "X" in One Box Only) TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 3 IO Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury -0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability

Liability 0 367 Health Carel 0 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical

Slander Personal lnj ury 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability

Liabili ty 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 340 Marine Injury Product 0 345 Marine Product Liability

Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Tmth in Lending

Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage

Injury 0 385 Property Damage 0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability

Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS

0 440 Other Civi l Rights Habeas Corims: 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 443 Housing/ Sentence

Accommodations 0 530 General 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penal ty

Employment Other: 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition

0 560 Civil Detainee -Conditions of Confinement

V. 0 RIG IN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF

Citi,.en of This State O I O I Incorporated or Principal Place O 4 0 4 of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

0 5 0 5

Citizen or Subject of a Forei

0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

Click here or: Nature ol Li ll o e escnotions. 'S Cd D FORFEITURE/PENAL TY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

0 625 Dmg Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act

of Property 21 use 88 I 0 423 Withdrawal 0 376 Qui Tam (3J USC

0 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) 0 400 State Reapportiomnent

PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 410 Antitrust 0 820 Copyrights 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 830 Patent 0 450 Commerce 0 835 Patent - Abbreviated 0 460 Deportation

New Dmg Application 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

.LABOR ~OCIAL SEC• IRITY 0 480 Consumer Credi t r~ 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (1395£1) 0 490 Cable/Sat TV

Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/

0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVJ 0 890 Other Statutory Actions

0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 751 Family and Medical 0 893 Environmental Matters

Leave Act 0 895 Freedom oflnfonnation

0 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act

0 791 Employee Retirement 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 896 Arbitration

[ocome Security Act or Defendant) 0 899 Administrative Procedure 0 871 IRS-Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of

26 use 7609 Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutionality of

IMMIGRATION State Statutes

0 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Im.migration

Actions

IS: I Original O 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court

0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or Reopened

0 5 Transferred from Another Distr ict (specify)

0 6 Multidistrict Litigation -Transfer

0 8 Multidistric t Litigation -Direct File

C ite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are fit ing (Do 1101 citej11risdictiom1/ statutes unless diversity) :

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et se Brief description of cause: Failure to a overtime under the FLSA and Conn. Minimum Wa

Vil. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

VIll. RELATED CASE(S) IFANY

DATE

01/31/2018 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTI DEMAND$ UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

JUDGE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ~ Yes O N o

DOCKET NUMBER

MAG.JUDGE

I

Case 3:18-cv-00177 Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A


MEMO: To all chauffeurs FROM: Hy's Management Team RE: Daily Lunch Break's

,

LIMOUSINE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION

12/30/21)15 11:20:49 AM

December 30, 2015

As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016 all chauffeurs will be given a 1 hour, unpaid meal break every day, while on the road at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the US Department of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation# 785.19. You may take that break anywhere within a radius of 2 miles from your next pick up. If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was deducted, please let me ~ow and it will be adjusted. Also, if you have any questions, please come and see me.

Please print and sign below that you received and understand this memo.

Regards, Steve Zubrinsky

Print name:_.r/2_~_cA_· -~-~-i ......... Q:_~_l <9__..\_ Signnam~

HV!S LIMOUSINE WORLDWIDE I New Haven-Fairfield/Greenwich-Hartford I Hyslimo.com I LimoServiceofGreenwich.com I F airfieldlimo.com - •• - .. · - • ... _.., - -- ' •• ·- , ............ ~ • • ., _,.,....,... '"''"'" • ""',._"~ • ,..,, _ _ _ ~l"V"II t'\l'\A l"\l\t\41) f l"'\-----... .1.:AU . ..... 1 :-.,,.. --


EXHIBIT B


From: Dennis Martinez <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 12:02 PM

To: 'Dispatch - Hy's Limousine Worldwide' Subject: New Meal Break Procedure Starting Jan 1, 2016

As of the pay period beginning January 3, 2016, all chauffeurs wi ll be given a 1 hour, unpaid

meal break every day, wh ile on the road, at a time decided by dispatch, pursuant to the US

Department of Labor, Code of Federal Regulations, regulation# 785.19.

You make take that break anywhere within a radius of 2 miles from your next pick up.

If for any reason, due to scheduling or length of shift, you did not get that break, and it was

deducted, please let accounting know by email just like you would for any other pay

discrepancy.

Please see me with questions on this, thanks!

All chauffeurs will be required to sign off on receiving this memo when getting checks this

week.

Due to this and the holiday, you must pick up your check during the following hours this

~ :

Today Wed 12/30: 12pm-6pm

Tomorrow Thu 12/31: 8am-2pm

Fri 1/1/16: 10am-4pm

Dennis Martinez

Chauffeur Manager


ClassAction.orgThis complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post: Hy’s Livery Services Facing Class Action Over Allegedly Improper Meal Break Deductions

https://www.classaction.org/news/hys-livery-services-facing-class-action-over-allegedly-improper-meal-break-deductions

united states district court district of connecticut … · 2019-12-27 · hy’s livery service,...

Documents