Childress Directional Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION NICHOLAS LEIKER, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(B), Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-3694 v.

CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC, & RAYMOND C. CHILDRESS, Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Nicholas Leiker (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated file this Original Complaint against Defendants Childress Directional Drilling, LLC and Ray Childers, and in support states the following: I. 1.

SUMMARY

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages

for himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Defendants attempted to circumvent the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) protections by misclassifying Plaintiff and many of its MWD Operators and oil field support workers, who may have been known under a distinct title but who performed similar duties, in their business (collectively, Defendants’ “Oilfield Workers”) as independent contractors. They paid Plaintiff and these workers a flat day-rate that failed to compensate these individuals for overtime work.

This collective action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to these misclassified Oilfield Workers.

II. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PARTIES Page - 1

2.

Plaintiff Nicholas Leiker is an individual who hereby files his Consent to join this suit,

which is attached as “Exhibit A.” Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a MWD Operator during the relevant statutory time period.

3.

The Class Members are Defendants’ current and former Oilfield Workers who were

misclassified as independent contractors and not paid overtime.

4.

Defendant Childress Directional Drilling, LLC is a Texas LLC that can be served through

its registered agent, Raymond C. Childress, at 639 Shady Hollow Street, Houston, Texas 77056.

5.

Defendant Raymond C. Childress is an individual residing in this District that can be

served at 639 Shady Hollow Street, Houston, Texas 77056 or wherever he may be found.

III. 6.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiff has asserted a claim arising

under federal law.

7.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because the events forming the basis of

this suit occurred in this District and because one or more of the Parties reside in this District.

IV. 8.

COVERAGE FACTS

At all material times, Defendants have acted, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an

employer or joint employer with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

9.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been employers or joint employers

within the meaning of the Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

10.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants has been an enterprise within the meaning

of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

11.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that said enterprise has had employees engaged in commerce PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 2

or in the production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person and in that said enterprise has had and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated).

12.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff and Class Members were individual

employees who were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207.

V. 13.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendants are involved in oilfield services throughout the country and specifically

provide horizontal and directional drilling services through Oilfield Workers and do more than $500,000.00 per year in business.

14.

Plaintiff worked as a MWD Operator for Defendants within the statutory period and

during the three years prior to the filing of this suit. Defendants paid Plaintiff and Class Members a flat day-rate for each day they worked that failed to provide them with overtime compensation or properly track their actual hours worked.

15.

Defendant Ray Childress controlled the day-to-day operations of Defendants, including

Childress Directional Drilling, LLC, during the relevant time period. Specifically, during the relevant time period, Ray Childress (1) had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and the Class Members, (2) controlled the amount and manner in which Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid, and (3) regularly controlled and established company rules for the Plaintiff and the Class Members.

16.

Plaintiff and the Class Members’ primary job duties include(d) assembling/dissembling oil

field equipment, operating oilfield machinery, collecting/relaying data, and reporting their daily PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 3

activities to their field supervisors for analysis. The Class Members conduct their day-to-day activities within designated parameters and in accordance with predetermined well plan and standards. The standards utilized and the well plans used are created, implemented, and regularly maintained by supervisors. The Class Members activities are routine and largely governed by standardized plans and checklists created by Defendants and their clients. Every element of the Class Members jobs are predetermined for them by Defendants and their clients, including the tools to use at a job site, the data to compile, and schedule of work and related work duties.

17.

Plaintiff and the Class Members’ job functions are primarily manual labor/technical in

nature, requiring no official training. A college degree is not required.

18.

Plaintiff and the Class Members routinely worked over 40 hours per week, but were not

paid overtime for doing so. Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours per week and allowed and directed them to do so.

19.

Defendants illegally classified Plaintiff and the Class Members as independent

contractors. However, at all times, Plaintiff and the Class Members were Defendants’ nonexempt employees as that term is defined by the FLSA and relevant case law. Defendants hired/fired, issued pay, supervised, directed, disciplined, scheduled and performed all duties generally associated with that of an employer in regards to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

Moreover, Plaintiff and the Class Members (1) performed work that was integral to Defendants’ business; (2) had no ability to affect their opportunity for profit or loss; (3) did not make any investments in facilities or equipment; (4) were provided equipment by Defendants; and (5) had relatively permanent relationship with Defendants.

20.

Because Plaintiff and the Class Members were employees under the law, they were

entitled to receive overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Defendants were aware of the FLSA’s overtime requirements and chose not to pay Plaintiff and the Class

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 4

Members overtime pay. Defendants willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the Class Members as independent contractors and refused to pay them overtime.

21.

Instead of being paid for their actual hours of worked, Plaintiff and the Class members

were paid a flat day-rate. No matter how many hours Plaintiff and the Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime compensation.

22.

The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each Class Member does not

prevent collective treatment. All Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are entitled to compensation for hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate. Although the exact amount of damages may vary among Class Members, the damages for the Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The Class Members’ claims arise from a common nucleus of facts. Specifically, Defendants’ systematic course of wrongful conduct caused harm to Plaintiff and the Class Members that supports Defendants’ FLSA liability.

23.

Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern

or practice of failing to pay overtime with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

VI. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24.

Plaintiff and the Class Members performed the same or similar job duties as one another

as described in the preceding paragraphs. Further, Plaintiff and Class Members were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were paid under the same pay plan and were not paid at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Rather they were paid on a daily basis, misclassified and mistreated as independent contractors, and not paid overtime pay for overtime worked. Thus, the Class Members are owed unpaid overtime for the same reasons as Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 5

25.

Defendant’s failure to compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 in a

workweek as required by the FLSA results from a policy or practice of failing to pay time-and-ahalf for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. This policy or practice is/was applicable to Plaintiff and the Class Members. Application of this policy or practice does not depend on the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff or those joining this lawsuit. Rather, the same policy or practice which resulted in the non-payment of overtime to Plaintiff applied to all Class Members.

26.

Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal

pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 27.

During the relevant period, Defendants have violated and are violating the provisions of

Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-7, and 215(a)(2), by employing employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA as aforesaid, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees for their work in excess of forty hours per week at rates no less than one-and-a-half times the regular rates for which they were employed or by failing to pay minimum wages to such employees. Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members in accordance with the law.

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT 28.

WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, Plaintiff prays for judgment against

Defendants jointly and severally as follows: PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 6

a.

For an Order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA finding Defendant liable for

unpaid back wages due to Plaintiff (and those who may join in the suit) and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due to Plaintiff (and those who may join the suit); and b.

For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who may join in the suit) the costs of

this action; c.

For an Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who may join in the suit) attorneys’

d.

For and Order awarding Plaintiff (and those who may join in the suit) pre-

fees;

judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; and e.

For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ J. Derek Braziel___________ JACK SIEGEL Co-Attorney in Charge

Texas Bar No. 24070621 SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy.

Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 706-0834 phone (469) 339-0204 fax www.siegellawgroup.biz J. DEREK BRAZIEL Co-Attorney in Charge

Texas Bar No. 00793380 J. FORESTER Texas Bar No. 24087532 LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 7

1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 8