Las Colinas Medical Center Nurse Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARILYN FRANKLIN, JENNIFER BIERIE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(B), Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-3194

HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P. AND COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Marilyn Franklin and Jennifer Bierie individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated file this Original Complaint and in support state the following: I. 1.

SUMMARY

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to pay for totally

uninterrupted meal breaks. Defendants, however, illegally failed to pay their direct patient care employees for meal breaks because they instituted policies, practices, and procedures that created continuous interruptions during Plaintiffs and the Class Members’ meal breaks or failed to relieve them from duty during their meal breaks. Despite instituting these policies that caused continuous interruptions, Defendants refused to compensate their direct employees with overtime compensation for working during these compensable meal breaks when Plaintiffs and the Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Defendants’ actions in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members overtime pay for these interrupted meal breaks constituted a willful violation of the FLSA.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 1

II. 2.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Marilyn Franklin is an individual who lives in this District and has

consented to join this lawsuit. Her consent to participate in this case is attached as Exhibit A. 3.

Plaintiff Jennifer Bierie is an individual who lives in this District and has consented

to join this lawsuit. Her consent to participate in this case is attached as Exhibit B. 4.

The Plaintiffs and “Potential Plaintiffs” are Defendants’ current and former hourly-

paid nurses.

5.

Defendant HCA Management Services, L.P. is a Delaware Corporation and can be

served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

6.

Defendant Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas is a Texas Corporation doing

business in Irving, Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

III. 7.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiffs have asserted a claim

arising under federal law.

8.

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

basis of the suit occurred in this District and one or more of the parties reside in this District.

IV. 9.

COVERAGE FACTS

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

of an employer or joint employer with respect to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs.

10.

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).

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 2

11.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises within the

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

12.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises 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 enterprises have had employees engaged in commerce 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 enterprises have 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).

13.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs 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. 14.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendants are involved in the business of operating hospitals throughout the

country. Defendants earn over $500,000.00 per year in gross sales.

15.

Plaintiffs worked as nurses at Defendants’ Las Colinas Medical Center within the

last three years.

16.

As nurses, Plaintiffs’ and the Potential Plaintiffs’ primary responsibility was direct

patient care, including monitoring patients, interacting with a patient’s visitors, and responding to emergency situations.

17.

Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were nonexempt employees and were paid on

an hourly basis. However, Plaintiffs did not record and were not paid for their actual hours of work because they were not paid for working through their meal breaks. Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were instructed to show they took a meal break by clocking out and clocking PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 3

back in at the end of the break, but they were not relieved from duty during this period. Defendants required, suffered, and permitted them to work through their meal breaks or interrupted the breaks such that they did not have a bona fide meal period. If Plaintiffs or Potential Plaintiffs neglected to “show” a meal period, their supervisors would alter their time to show a meal period was taken.

18.

Plaintiffs were regularly scheduled to work at least 40 hours (or more) in a given

week, even with the meal period deducted each day. Consequently, the additional work performed

by Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs would be time worked in excess of 40 hours per week and should have been paid at an overtime rate. Plaintiffs were not paid overtime pay for the time worked during meal periods in weeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours a week.

19.

Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs are entitled to receive overtime pay for all

hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, including compensable time for working during and through meal breaks. Defendants were aware of the FLSA’s overtime requirements, but chose not to pay Plaintiff and the Potential Plaintiffs overtime pay for interrupted meal breaks. Defendants knew Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs were required to continue handling patients and monitoring them while they were clocked out for lunch, but did not remedy the situation.

20.

When Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours in a

workweek, Defendants did not pay them one and one-half times their regularly hourly rate for meal breaks. This time is compensable under the FLSA because (1) Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs were not completely relieved from their duties during meal breaks; (2) they were interrupted with work duties during their meal breaks; or (3) they entirely skipped their meal breaks due to work demands.

21.

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

pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime with respect to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs.

VI.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 4

22.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 13 – 21 as if stated fully herein.

23.

Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs performed the same or similar job duties as

one another as described in the preceding paragraphs in that the Potential Plaintiffs were other hourly employees responsible for direct patient care. Further, Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were paid under the same pay plan that failed to pay them overtime pay for interrupted meal breaks. Accordingly, the Potential Plaintiffs were victimized by Defendants’ unlawful pattern and practices and are similarly situated to Plaintiffs in terms of job duties and pay provisions.

24.

Defendants’ failure to pay overtime or minimum wage compensation at the rates

required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and do not depend on the personal circumstances of the Potential Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ experience is typical of the experience of the Potential Plaintiffs. All Potential Plaintiffs, regardless of their precise job requirements or rates of pay, are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, including specifically one-and-one half times their regular rate during interrupted meal breaks. Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. The questions of law and fact are common to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs.

25.

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

pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime and minimum compensation with respect to Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs.

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 26.

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

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 5

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 of pay for which they were employed.. Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Potential Plaintiffs in accordance with the law.

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT 27.

WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against

Defendants as follows: a.

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

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

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

this action; c.

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

d.

For and Order awarding Plaintiffs (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.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 6

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ J. Derek Braziel___________ J. DEREK BRAZIEL Attorney in Charge

Texas Bar No. 00793380 JAY FORESTER Texas Bar No. 24087532 Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com

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

Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 (844) Low-Wage phone (844) Low-Wage fax www.siegellawgroup.biz

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 7