IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



IN THE

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

LINDA ADAMS, DEBBIE JACOBS, MARY C. BEASLEY,

ROBIN FRALEY, GINA BAILEY, BETTY W. HART,

FOREST SHEWSBURON, on their own behalf and for all

others similarly situated,                         

                       Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 3:05CV310

SCHOOL BOARD OF HANOVER COUNTY,

DR. STEWART D. ROBERSON, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board AND Superintendent of Schools, for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

DAVID L SLONAKER, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

GLENN T. MILLICAN, JR., in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

SUE F. WATSON, in her official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

JOHN F. AXSELLE, III, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

ROBERT L. WOOD, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

ANN F. H. GLADSTONE, in her official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

ROBERT L. HUDLEY, JR., in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005

EARL J. HUNTER, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia

Serve: 200 Berkley Street

Ashland, VA 23005  

                  Defendants. 

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated to require Defendants to pay back wages owed to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, which Defendants failed to pay in violation of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ("the Act"). Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief and damages for themselves and all class members.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; 29 U.S.C. § 216, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).\

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii) because the defendant transacts business in this district, and plaintiffs were employed by the defendant in this district, and most of the actions complained of were conducted within this district.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiffs Linda Adams, Debbie Jacobs, Mary C. Beasley, Robin Fraley, Gina Bailey, Betty W. Hart, and Forest Shrewsbury (hereinafter “Bus Drivers”) are current hourly non-exempt employee of Hanover County School Board who earned, but did not receive, compensation for time worked, together with time and one-half pay for time spent over 40 hours per week from Defendants.

5. The class of similarly situated bus drivers are or were hourly non-exempt employees of Hanover County School Board who earned, but did not receive compensation for time worked, time and one-half pay for time spent over 40 hours per week from Defendants.

6. The plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the class at all times relevant hereto were each an “employee” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (e).

7. The defendant was at all times relevant hereto was an “employer” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (d).[1]

8. Defendant is Hanover County School Board, (“Hanover”). The employees of Hanover regularly handle and work on goods such as office supplies, buses, etc. which have moved in interstate commerce.

9. Defendants Dr. Stewart D. Roberson, David L. Slonaker, Glen T. Millican, Jr., Sue F. Watson, John F. Azselle, III, Robert L. Wood, Ann F. H. Gladstone, Robert L. Hudley, Jr., and Earl J. Hunter are members of the school board for the County of Hanover and are sued in their official capacity as the employer of the plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the members of the class.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff Bus Drivers brings this action on behalf of themselves and an opt-in class of all persons who were, are or will be hourly non-exempt bus drivers of Hanover who earned, but did not receive compensation for time worked, including but not limited to overtime pay from Defendant, and only recently became aware of their right to such compensation and overtime pay.

a) The size of the class is so numerous (over 100 persons) that joinder of the individual members would be impracticable.

b) The named Plaintiffs are an adequate class representative because they are directly impacted by Defendants’ actions. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in representing clients in federal litigation.

c) Common questions of law and fact are involved, including questions posed by Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants failed to pay in violation of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ("the Act") present and former hourly non-exempt employees of Hanover County, who earned, but did not receive, overtime pay from Defendant.

d) Claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class because all class members and the named Plaintiffs are affected by Defendants’ conduct.

e) Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

f) Common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

g) The named Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the class members in terms of job responsibilities, title, and employment dates as they are all bus drivers who provided services to the students of Hanover County including but not limited to developmentally and learning disabled children for the purpose of supplying such services to the public and who were denied compensation for all the time that they worked and on occasion, time and one-half overtime wages by Defendants.

FACTS

11. Hanover County School Board hired the Bus Drivers and class members.

12. Bus Drivers and class members provide transportation services, including but not limited to, driving school buses, maintaining a clean and safe environment, reporting behavioral issues, issuing conduct notices, cleaning the buses, refueling the buses, transporting the buses for repairs and maintenance, storing the buses, supplying such services to the public.

13. Hanover County School Board paid Bus Drivers and class members an hourly wage, but failed to pay for all time worked, including for actual time driving, for time driving the empty bus, for time fueling, cleaning and inspecting the bus, for time required to have buses repaired and similar time spent associated with the duties of driving a bus.

14. Hanover County School Board failed to maintain time records[2].

PAYMENT FOR ALL TIME WORKING

15. The Bus Drivers and class members are not paid for all the time that they work. Instead, Hanover County School Board pays the Bus Drivers and class members an arbitrary pay without regard to the time actually expended by the Bus Drivers and class members working.

16. The defendants improperly failed to compensate the plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members for all time they were at work discharging their work-related duties.

17. For extra bus runs, the Bus Drivers and class members are paid at reduced rates.

OVERTIME COMPENSATION

18. From time to time, Bus Drivers and class members are required to worked over forty hours per week.

19. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires an employer to pay its employees at a rate of at least one and one-half their regular rate for time worked in one work week over forty hours. This is commonly known as the time-and-a-half pay for overtime work.

20. Despite working overtime, the Bus Drivers and class members were not paid time and one-half pay from Defendants for overtime worked.

WILLFUL VIOLATIONS

21. On information and belief, Defendants have for more than three years, willingly, deliberately and intentionally refused to pay Bus Drivers and class members for time actually worked, and for time and one-half pay for overtime worked.

22. On information and belief, and in violation of the FLSA, Defendants did not, during all relevant times, until recently, post the FLSA laws in an area alerting Bus Drivers and class members of their rights to payment for time worked and to overtime pay under the FLSA.

23. Consequently, Bus Drivers and class members were until very recently, never aware that the FLSA provided for compensation for time actually worked rather than an arbitrary determination and for time and one-half pay for overtime worked or that they were owed compensation for actual time worked and time and one-half pay for overtime worked as a bus drivers.

24. Defendants led Bus Drivers and class members to believe that their regular pay was paid in conformity with the FLSA and the laws of the State of Virginia.

25. In fact, not until one of the Bus Drivers contacted the Department of Education did the Bus Drivers and class members find that they were owed back wages or learn that Defendants failed to pay in accordance with FLSA and did fail to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

26. Defendants knew or should have known that Bus Drivers and class members were entitled to compensation for time actually worked and for time and one-half overtime pay under the FLSA, during all relevant times.

27. As proof of this fact, upon information and belief Defendants had previously received publications and advice to pay Bus Drivers and class members the wages actually earned and to pay time and one-half overtime pay, but failed to do so.

28. As further proof of this fact, when the failure to comply was brought to the attention of the director, the only response was “HR knew what they were doing” or words of similar import.

29. As further proof of this fact, in newsletters from the VAPT, schools were notified that wage claims were arising due to violations of FLSA under circumstances similar to the present.

30. When drivers questioned the director about not being paid for hours in excess of 4 hours per day, the director responded, “this is just how we do it.”

31. As further proof of this fact, Defendants instituted a new time record on April 1, 2005, which requires the employees Bus Drivers and class members to certify that the document reports true and correct hours worked, but has concurrently provided the Bus Drivers and class members with instructions regarding the completion of the time sheet which will result in erroneous report of that time, including but not limited to ending the calculation of time as soon as the last child is let off the bus, starting the time when the bus leaves the lot, if garaged on School property rather than when inspection of the bus begins, not including time required to park the bus, not including time spent traveling to refuel the bus (only including actual pump time) time, no time included for driving the bus for repairs, no time for inspecting the bus after the bus run to close windows and insure that no child is left on the bus sleeping.

32. Defendants, however, willfully, deliberately and intentionally failed to pay Bus Drivers and class members for time actually worked and for time and one-half overtime wages to Bus Drivers and class members who worked over forty hours per week.

33. Defendants have never claimed that the FLSA laws do not apply to the Bus Drivers and class members or that the Bus Drivers and class members are exemption from these requirements.

34. The Bus Drivers and the other similarly situated bus drivers are, therefore, owed compensation for time actually worked but not paid, and time and one-half overtime wages and back wages by Defendants, who willingly and knowingly withheld those wages.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fair Labor Standards Act)

35. The foregoing paragraphs are included herein as though fully set forth herein.

36. Defendants regularly engage in commerce and their employees handle and use goods, which have moved in interstate commerce.

37. At all relevant times, Defendants were and are employers within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. and are subject to the provisions of such Act.

38. Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the Plaintiff Class at all relevant times were employees of Defendants, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.

39. During the period of time that Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the Plaintiff Class were employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and Plaintiff Class performed work for which they were not compensated and in addition on occasion overtime work for which no additional compensation was paid to them by Defendants in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. More specifically, Defendants violated § 7 of the FLSA by failing to pay time and one-half overtime wages to hourly non-exempt employees who constitute the Plaintiff Class and earned overtime pay.

40. Upon information and belief, the defendant’s pay system was unilaterally imposed upon plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members.

41. The defendants’ failure to compensate the plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the class members for all compensable hours violates the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and the regulations thereunder.

42. The defendants’ failure to properly administer a scheme of compensation, including but not limited to actual time, overtime and/or comp time compensation violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the regulations thereunder.

43. The defendants’ failure to compensate the plaintiff for all compensable hours was a willful and knowing violation of the FLSA.

44. As a result of defendant’s willful and knowing failure to properly compensate the plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members, the plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members have suffered substantial delays in receipt of wages owed and damages.

45. The Defendants’ failure to properly administer a compensation scheme for overtime was a willful and knowing violation of the FLSA.

46. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216, Defendants owe Plaintiff Bus Drivers and the Plaintiff Class compensation for the overtime work, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, together with an additional sum for attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT 2

29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)(1994).

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FLSA

47. The foregoing paragraphs are included herein as though fully set forth herein.

48. Some of the Plaintiff Bus Drivers who have completed their time records with actual time have been subjected to harassment, increased scrutiny and meetings for which they have not received compensation.

49. The Bus Drivers that have complained have been advised that the defendant only has a problem with a few drivers.

50. There is a causal link between the adverse employment actions as described above and the assertion by plaintiff Bus Drivers of both their rights and the unfulfilled duties of defendants under the FLSA.

51. Other Bus Drivers and the class members fear retaliation for either reporting their time accurately or for opposing the violations of FLSA by defendants.

52. The actions of the defendants are in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)(1994).

53. § 704(a) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against any employee who has opposed any unlawful employment practice.

54. Certain of the plaintiff Bus Drivers opposed the unlawful employment practices of defendant and were consequently retaliated against.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the putative class seek judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. That the Court certify the instant suit as an opt-in class action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

2. That the Court declare the rights and duties of the parties consistent with the relief sought by Plaintiffs;

3. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s acts, policies, practices and procedures complained of herein violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

4. That Defendants be enjoined from further violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

5. That the named Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and class members recover compensatory, damages and an equal amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

6. That Plaintiff and the class recover an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses;

7. Order the Defendants to make whole the Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the class members by providing appropriate back pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief;

8. Plaintiffs further pray for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require. 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all triable issues.

Linda Adams, Debbie Jacobs, Mary C. Beasley,

Robin Fraley, Gina Bailey, Betty W. Hart,

Forest Shrewsbury, and others similarly situated

By:

Counsel

______________________________________

Thomas H. Roberts, #20614

Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.

105 S. First Street

Richmond, VA 23219

T (804) 783-2000

F (804) 783-2105

-----------------------

[1] (d) “Employer” includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and includes a public agency….

[2] § 211(c) Records

Every employer subject to any provision of this chapter or of any order issued under this chapter shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him, and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as he shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations or orders thereunder. The employer of an employee who performs substitute work described in section 207 (p)(3) of this title may not be required under this subsection to keep a record of the hours of the substitute work.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download