Superior Health Plan Lawsuit

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 7 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DEDRA JACKSON, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(B) Plaintiff, v.

Civil Action No. SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC., & CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P, Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Dedra Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated files this Original Complaint, and in support shows the Court the following: I. 1.

SUMMARY

This is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as Service Coordinator whose primary responsibilities included collecting answers to standardized medical questionnaires from Defendants’ participants, inputting answers from those questionnaires into Defendants’ automated system, and collecting medical authorizations. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not paid overtime for the hours for any of the hours he worked in excess of 40.

II. 1.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Dedra Jackson is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas. Her

consent to join this case is attached as Exhibit A. 2.

The Plaintiff and “Class Members” are Defendants’ current and former Service

Coordinators whose primary responsibilities included collecting answers to standardized medical PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 1

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

Page 2 of 7 PageID 2

questionnaires, inputting answers from those questionnaires into Defendants’ automated system, and collecting medical authorizations. This includes Defendant’s Service Coordinators, Field Service Coordinators (Field), and individuals working under other titles performing these duties.

3.

Defendant Superior Healthplan, Inc. (“Superior”) is a Texas corporation that has

appointed C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136 as its agent for service of process.

4.

Defendant Centene Company of Texas, L.P. (“CTX) is a Texas Limited

Partnership that has appointed C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136 as its agent for service of process.

5.

Superior and CTX are subsidiaries of Centene Corporation. Centene Corporation

is a multi-line healthcare enterprise that provides programs and related services to a number of under-insured and uninsured individuals. Its subsidiaries, including Defendants, are companies that operate government sponsored health insurance plans.

III. 1.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

arising under federal law.

2.

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

basis of the suit occurred in this District.

IV. 3.

COVERAGE

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

of an employer with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

4.

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

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

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 2

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

5.

Page 3 of 7 PageID 3

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises, individually

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

6.

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 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 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated).

7.

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. 8.

FACTUAL FLSA ALLEGATIONS

Defendants have had business operations in Texas and their annual gross volume

of sales, individually and collectively, made or business done exceeds $500,000.00 per year.

9.

Plaintiff Dedra Jackson (“Plaintiff”) worked as a Service Coordinator for

Defendant within the last three years.

10.

As a Service Coordinator, Plaintiff’s primary duties included making in-home

visits to obtain participants’ answers to standardized medical questionnaires, inputting data from those questionnaires into Defendants’ automated system, and collecting medical authorizations.

Plaintiff’s job duties were routine and rote and did not include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 3

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

11.

Page 4 of 7 PageID 4

While a Service Coordinator, Plaintiff handled materials including equipment to

conduct medical assessments.

12.

Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per week.

However, she was not

properly paid overtime for all hours he worked in excess of 40 hours every week in which he worked. Defendants knew that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week and allowed and directed her to do so. Instead, Plaintiff was paid a salary for her work and was not paid overtime pay for her hours of overtime work.

13.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive overtime pay for all the hours worked in excess of

40 per workweek. Defendant was aware of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements and chose not to pay Plaintiff’s overtime.

Defendant willfully misclassified

Plaintiff as exempt and refused to pay her overtime.

14.

Defendants have been aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiff and the

Class Members performed non-exempt work that required overtime compensation. For instance, Defendants employ LVNs and Social Workers as Service Coordinators to make in-home patient visits to collect answers to standardized medical questionnaires from Defendants’ participants, input answers from those questionnaires into Defendants’ automated system, and collect medical authorizations. In September 2014, the Honorable Judge Sparks of the Western District of Texas determined that Case Managers that worked for CTX—who actually perform utilization review work involving application of guidelines and criteria to authorization requests—are exempt employees under the FLSA. Because Plaintiff and the Class Members duties involves little more than data collection and entry, Defendants actions knew that they had misclassified Plaintiff and the Class Members as exempt.

VI. 15.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 8 – 14 as if stated fully herein.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 4

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

16.

Page 5 of 7 PageID 5

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

another as described in the preceding paragraphs in that the Class Members whose primary responsibilities included collecting answers from participants for standardized questionnaires, inputting data from those questionnaires into Defendants’ automated system, and collecting medical authorizations. Further, Plaintiff and Class Members were subjected to the same illegal pay plan 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. Accordingly, the Class Members victimized by Defendants’ unlawful pattern and practices are similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of job duties and pay provisions.

17.

Defendant’s failure to pay overtime 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 Class Members. Thus, Plaintiff’s experience is typical of the experience of the Class Members. All Class Members, regardless of their precise job requirements or rates of pay, are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

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 Plaintiff and the Class Members.

18.

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 Plaintiff and the Class Members.

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 19.

During the relevant period, Defendant violated and is 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

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 5

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

Page 6 of 7 PageID 6

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. Defendant has acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members in accordance with the law.

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT 20.

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

Defendant as follows: 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.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 6

Case 3:15-cv-03125-P Document 1 Filed 09/25/15

Page 7 of 7 PageID 7

Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Jack Siegel___________ JACK SIEGEL 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 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page - 7