Mercer v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.

1 Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar. No. 12225 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com [2] HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 3 325 W Liberty St Reno, Nevada 89501 4 Tel. (775) 502-8332 5 Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 mark@thiermanbuck.com [6] Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 7 josh@thiermanbuck.com Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 8 leah@thiermanbuck.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP 9 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, Nevada 89511 [10] Tel. (775) 284-1500 11 Fax. (775) 703-5027 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. [13] 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA [15] LEANN MERCER, on behalf of herself and all Case No. 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK 16 others similarly situated, 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 18 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC; and 20 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 21 Defendants. [22] Plaintiff, LEANN MERCER (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, CAESARS [23] ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Caesars”) and PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC [24] (“Defendants”) (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate [25] and agree that Plaintiffs may file with the Court, without further motion, the First Amended [26] Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proposed First Amended [28] 1 || Complaint seeks only to add current Opt-In Plaintiffs Jocelyn Lewis and Mike Brady as Named 2 || Plaintiffs and does not otherwise change the factual allegations or claims asserted in this action. 3 Dated: March 28, 2024 Dated: March 28, 2024 [4] Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, [5] □□□ Joshua R. Hendrickson /s/ Amy L. Thompson 6 || JOSHUA R. HENDRICKSON, ESQ. MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ. HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. 7 M R. THIERMAN, ESQ MICHAEL D. DISSINGER, ESQ. 8 JosHUA D. BUCK. ESQ. . LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. LEAH L. JONES, ESQ. 9 || THIERMAN BUCK, LLP Attorneys for Defendants 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others 1] || Similarly situated. [12] 13 ORDER [14] IT IS SOORDERED _ March 29 2024. [16] 17 U.S. District Judge [28] CTIDITIT ATIFVAT AKTTIY TDD MmDmeceLllm! MNMOD IpDaArwkTTIAIY.AT CALITO Vr: CTT LC □□□□□□□□□ First Amended Complaint 1 || Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar. No. 12225 5 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 3 || 325 West Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 4 || Tel. (775) 502-8332 5 || Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 6 mark@thiermanbuck.com Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 7 ||josh@thiermanbuck.com Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 8 || leah@thiermanbuck.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP 9 West Liberty Street 3 40 Reno, Nevada 89501 Tel. (775) 284-1500 5 41 || Fax. (775) 703-5027 8 12 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated Ks 32324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT “7's AE 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA as ce 16 LEANN MERCER; JOCELYN LEWIS; Case No.: 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK 5 47 and MIKE BRADY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND 18 situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 19 Plaintiffs, 1) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207 , et al.; 50 Vs. 2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and § NRS 608.250; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CoO., 3) Failure to Compensate for All Hours 29 LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Worked in Violation of NRS 608.016 and 608.140; 53 Defendants. 4) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS § 608.018 and NRS § 608.140; and 24 5) Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing 25 in Violation of NRS 608.020-.050 and NRS 608.140. 26 ARBITRATION EXEMPTION CLAIMED: CLASS ACTION 28 LIEN REQUESTED PURSUANT TO NRS 608.050 -1- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 3 COME NOW Plaintiffs LEANN MERCER, JOCELYN LEWIS, and MIKE BRADY 4 || (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and 5 || allege the following: 6 All allegations in the Complaint are based upon information and belief except for 7 ||those allegations that pertain to the Plaintiffs named herein and their counsel. Each 8 || allegation in the Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary - 9 || support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery. 210 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged herein 12 ||because the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000 and a party seeking to recover 13 || unpaid wages has a private right of action pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 2 14 || Chapter 608. See Neville v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for County of Clark, 406 P.3d = : 15 499, 502 (Nev. 2017). Plaintiffs made a proper demand for wages due pursuant to NRS £6 16 ||608.140 on May 4, 2023. Plaintiffs also claim a private cause of action to foreclose a lien 17 || against the property owner for wages due pursuant to NRS 608.050. 18 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims alleged herein pursuant 19 || to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b) which states: “An action to 20 recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences may be maintained against any 21 || employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction 22 ||by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other 23 || employees similarly situated.” 24 3. Venue is proper in this Court because one or more of the Defendants named 25 || herein maintains a principal place of business or otherwise is found in this judicial district 26 ||and many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Clark County, Nevada, which is 27 || located within this district. 28 PARTIES ree 1 4. Plaintiff LEANN MERCER is a natural person who is and has been a 2 || resident of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 3 5. Plaintiff JOCELYN LEWIS is a natural person who is and has been a 4 || resident of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 5 6. Plaintiff MIKE BRADY is a natural person who is and has been a resident 6 || of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 7 7. Defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Caesars”) is a foreign 8 || corporation headquartered in Nevada and is the largest casino operator in the United 9 ||States. Caesars’ Agent of Service, Corporation Service Company, is located at 112 N. 10 ||Curry Street, Carson City, NV, 89703, USA. 11 8. Defendant PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC (“Paris”) is a 25 12 ||Domestic Limited-Liability Company registered with the Nevada Secretary of State. 5 13 || Paris’ Agent of Service, Corporation Service Company, is located at 112 N. Curry Street, 14 || Carson City, NV, 89703, USA. : 15 9. Caesars and Paris are each referred to herein as a “Defendant” or ES 16 ||“Defendants.” The Defendants named herein are the employers of Plaintiffs and all 3 17 || collective and class action members alleged herein. Defendants are employers engaged 18 ||in commerce under the provisions of NRS 608.011. 19 10. The identity of DOES 1-50 is unknown at this time and the Complaint will 20 ||be amended at such time when the identities are known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are 21 ||informed and believe that each Defendant sued herein as DOE is responsible in some 22 ||manner for the acts, omissions, or representations alleged herein and any reference to 23 || “Defendant” or “Defendants” herein shall mean “Defendants and each of them.” 24 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 25 11. Caesars owns and operates the World Series of Poker (“WSOP”). The 26 || WSOP is a series of poker tournaments held annually in Paradise, Nevada. Every year, 27 ||Caesars operates WSOP tournaments and live cash games at casino hotels that are 28 || owned and operated by Caesars, including the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino, the Paris -3- 1 ||Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, and (starting in 2023) the Horseshoe Las Vegas Hotel and 2 Casino. Caesars employs poker dealers to work at their WSOP tournaments and live 3 cash games every year. 4 12. Plaintiff Mercer has worked as a seasonal WSOP dealer for Caesars every 5 || year since 2017, except 2020 (due to the COVID 19 pandemic). Plaintiffs Lewis and 6 || Brady have likewise worked as seasonal WSOP dealers for Caesars during the relevant 7 ||period. While Caesars initially classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors prior to 8 ||2020, beginning in 2021 and continuing through the present, Defendants have hired 9 || Plaintiffs each year to work as hourly paid non-exempt employee dealers for WSOP 10 |/tournaments and live cash games for the duration of the WSOP season. Each year, 11 ||Defendants have terminated Plaintiffs’ employment at the conclusion of the WSOP 12 season. 5 13 Defendants’ Failure to Pay For Time Worked Attending Required Training 14 Sessions & E 15 13. Defendants required Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated WSOP ES 16 || dealers to attend training sessions around the beginning of each WSOP season. Training 3 17 ||focused on subjects such as Defendants’ active shooter protocols, anti-money 18 ||laundering rules, sexual harassment policies, safety policies, cardroom rules and 19 ||policies, and other practices and policies concerning Defendants’ business and 20 ||employment of Plaintiffs and other WSOP dealers. 21 14. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated WSOP 22 ||dealers for all of their time worked attending these training sessions. For example, 23 || Plaintiff Mercer estimates that she spent approximately seven-and-a-half (7.5) hours 24 attending training sessions at the beginning of the 2022 WSOP season. However, 25 ||Defendants only paid Plaintiff Mercer for three (3) hours of work for her time spent 26 || attending training sessions. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff Mercer for the additional 27 || four-and-a-half (4.5) hours spent attending training sessions. [28] rh 1 15. Plaintiffs’ experience as described above is not unique. Other WSOP 2 || dealers have informed Plaintiffs that they have similarly only been paid for (3) hours of 3 || training time, even though such employees similarly spent significantly more than three 4 hours of time attending the required training sessions. Based on information and belief, 5 ||Defendants systemically failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated WSOP 6 || dealers for their time worked attending required training sessions. 7 Defendants’ Failure to Include Non-Discretionary Payments in Overtime 8 Calculations - 9 16. Defendants paid Plaintiffs an hourly base rate of $12.50 per hour. In 10 addition, when Plaintiffs were dealing certain games, Defendants paid Plaintiffs an 11 additional guaranteed amount of $15.00 to $20.00 per “down,” which Defendants 25 12 ||referred to as a “Guaranteed Down Rate.” A “down” refers to a set amount of time 13 ||(commonly half an hour) that a poker dealer spends dealing cards at a given table. 14 || Including the Guaranteed Down Rate, WSOP poker dealers could earn a regular hourly : 15 ||rate of over $50 an hour. ES 16 17. Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and 3 17 ||forty (40) hours in a workweek. When Plaintiffs worked overtime, they were 18 || compensated overtime at one and one-half (1 ’4) times their base hourly rate of pay 19 || without including the additional non-discretionary compensation paid in the form of the 20 || Guaranteed Down Rate wages. 21 18. For example, attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an 22 || itemized pay statement that Defendants provided to Plaintiff Mercer, which represents 23 ||employee wages for the pay period of June 10, 2022, through June 23, 2022. During 24 || this two-week pay period, Plaintiff Mercer worked 106.5 hours. Based on information 25 || and belief, Plaintiff Mercer worked more than eight (8) hours in a workday and forty (40) 26 ||hours in a workweek in each of the two workweeks falling within this pay period. 27 || Defendants compensated Plaintiff Mercer for 80 hours of regular time at her base rate of 28 ||$12.50 per hour, for a total of $1000.00. Defendants further compensated Plaintiff -5- 1 ||Mercer an additional $1,750.00 in three separate line items labeled “Tokes,” which 2 || included the Guaranteed Down Rate due for time worked dealing specified tables during 3 that pay period. However, Defendants only compensated Plaintiff Mercer for her 26.5 4 |/hours of overtime at an overtime rate of $18.75 (1 % times her base hourly rate of 5 ||$12.50), for a total of $496.88. Defendants did not include the nondiscretionary 6 || Guaranteed Down Rate compensation in the regular rate for the purpose of calculating 7 || overtime and did not pay Plaintiff Mercer any overtime premium on the Guaranteed Down 8 ||Rate wages. Plaintiff Mercer is therefore owed $217.72 in unpaid overtime for this pay 9 || period. 10 19. Plaintiffs’ experience as described above is not unique. Defendants 11 maintain an unlawful payment practice of paying Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated 3 25 12 || employees the base hourly rate of pay for overtime without including other forms of non5 13 ||discretionary compensation such as the Guaranteed Down Rate. Defendants’ 14 ||calculation error is systematic and applies to all non-exempt employees who worked : 15 || overtime within the relevant period and who were paid non-discretionary compensation ES 16 the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate beyond their base hourly pay. Defendants are 3 17 |! legally required to maintain all pay documentation that will demonstrate the amount of 18 || overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and all members of the putative collective action and 19 || classes. 20 COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21 20. ‘Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 22 || above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23 21. ~~ Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 24 ||situated employees as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 25 ||and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 22. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following FLSA 27 Collective of similarly situated individuals: [28] Be 1 FLSA Collective: All persons who worked over 40 hours in a workweek and who were paid a base hourly rate of pay plus non2 discretionary compensation in the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate and who were employed by Defendants in the United States at any 3 time during the relevant time period. 4 23. With regard to the conditional certification mechanism under the FLSA, || Plaintiffs are similarly situated to those they seek to represent for the following reasons, 6 || among others: 7 A. Defendants employed Plaintiffs and all other FLSA Collective Members 8 as hourly-paid employees who did not receive their overtime premium 9 pay at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours they 8 10 worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek. 1 B. Plaintiffs’ situation is similar to those they seek to represent because 3 42 Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other FLSA Collective 13 Members their full overtime wages owed. Ze 8 14 C. Common questions exist as to whether Plaintiffs and all other members = 3 45 of the FLSA Collective worked overtime hours but yet were not RE es compensated their correct overtime rate of pay. [16] D. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ, and have employed, [317] & in excess of 1,000 FLSA Collective Members within the applicable [18] statute of limitations period. 19 E. Plaintiffs have signed and filed a Consent to Sue form in this action. 20 24. ‘Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following a1 Nevada Classes of similarly situated individuals employed by Defendants: 22 A. Regular Rate Class: All persons who worked over 40 hours in a workweek and who were paid a base hourly rate of pay plus non23 discretionary compensation in the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate and who were employed by Defendants in the state of Nevada at any 24 time during the relevant time period. 25 B. Training Class: All current and former persons employed by Defendants as WSOP dealers during the relevant time period in the 26 State of Nevada who attended Defendants’ required training sessions without receiving compensation for all hours worked 7 attending such training. [28] -7- 1 C. Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class: All members of the Regular Rate Class and/or the Training Class who are former 2 employees. 3 25. Class treatment is appropriate under Rule 23’s class certification 4 || mechanism because: 5 A. The Classes are Sufficiently Numerous: Upon information and 6 belief, Defendants employ and have employed in excess of 1,000 Class Members in each class within the applicable time period. Because Defendants are legally 8 obligated to keep accurate payroll records, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ 9 records will establish the members of these Classes as well as their numerosity. 3 10 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims are Typical to Those of Fellow Class Members: : 11 Each Class Member is and was subject to the same practices, plans, or policies 5 12 as Plaintiffs. 13 C. Common Questions of Law and Fact Exist: Common questions of 14 law and fact exist and predominate as to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, RE 15 including, without limitation: (1) Whether Defendants paid Overtime wages at the Eg 16 correct legal rate; and (2) Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Wages Due and 5 17 Owing Sub-Class Class are entitled to continuation wages for the failure to pay 18 them pursuant to Nevada law. 19 D. Plaintiffs are Adequate Representatives of the Classes: Plaintiffs 20 will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Classes because Plaintiffs 21 are a member of all the Classes, they have issues of law and fact in common with 22 all members of the Classes, and their interests are not antagonistic to Class 23 members. Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities 24 to Class Members and are determined to discharge those duties diligently by 25 vigorously seeking the maximum possible recovery for Class Members. 26 E. Predominance/Superior Mechanism: Class claims predominate and 27 a class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient [28] Be 1 adjudication of this controversy. Each Class Member has been damaged and is 2 entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policy and/or practice of 3 failing to compensate its employees in accordance with Nevada wage and hour 4 law. The prosecution of individual remedies by each Class Member will tend to 5 establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendants and result in the 6 impairment of Class Members’ rights and the disposition of their interest through 7 actions to which they were not parties. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - 9 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 10 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Against Defendants) 11 26. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 3 25 12 || above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 5 13 27. 290U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) provides as follows: “Except as otherwise provided 14 ||in the section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is & E 15 || engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an ES 16 ||enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a 3 17 || workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his 18 employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one19 || half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Emphasis added. 20 28. “Regular rate” is defined to include “all remuneration for employment paid 21 ||to, or on behalf of, the employee[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 207 (e); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.211 22 || (“Bonuses which are announced to employees to induce them to work more steadily or 23 ||more rapidly or more efficiently or to remain with the firm are regarded as part of the 24 ||regular rate of pay.) “The regular rate by its very nature must reflect all payments which 25 parties have agreed shall be received regularly during the workweek, exclusive of 26 || overtime payments. It is not an arbitrary label chosen by the parties; it is an actual fact.” 27 ||Newman v. Advanced Tech. Innovation Corp., 749 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 || Walling v. Youngerman—Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424 , 65 S.Ct. 1242 , 89 -9- 1 ||L.Ed. 1705 (1945)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.211 (“For example, any bonus which is 2 || promised to employees upon hiring or which is the result of collective bargaining would 3 ||not be excluded from the regular rate under this provision of the Act.”). 4 29. Based on the allegations set forth above, Defendants failed to include non5 || discretionary compensation in the form of Guaranteed Down Rate wages in the regular 6 ||rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime premiums due to Plaintiffs and all 7 ||members of the FLSA Collective. 8 30. The statute of limitations under the FLSA is 3 years for willful violations. - 9 || Defendants’ policy of failing to pay overtime on nondiscretionary wages for time worked 10 || is a willful and reckless violation of federal wage and overtime requirements. Defendants 11 ||have sought to avoid their wage-hour obligations by refusing to properly compensate 12 ||employees for overtime even though there is no reasonable basis to exclude the 5 13 ||nondiscretionary Guaranteed Down Rate wages from the regular rate of pay for purposes 14 || of calculating overtime compensation. Accordingly, Defendant’s conduct in this regard “3 : 15 ||has been willful. ES 16 31. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and all FLSA Collective 3 17 Members that Defendants pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Members their full overtime 18 wages at the applicable legal rate of pay during the relevant time period together with 19 || liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, as provided by law. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and 22 NRS § 608.250 23 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Training Class Against Defendants) 24 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 25 || above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26 33. Article 15 Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution sets forth the minimum 27 || wage requirements in the State of Nevada and further provides that “[t]he provisions of 28 || this section may not be waived by agreement between an individual employee and an -10- 1 || employer. ... An employee claiming violation of this section may bring an action against 2 ||his or her employer in the courts of this State to enforce the provisions of this section 3 || and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to 4 ||remedy any violation of this section, including but not limited to back pay, damages, 5 reinstatement or injunctive relief. An employee who prevails in any action to enforce this 6 || section shall be awarded his or her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” 7 34. NRS 608.016 states, “An employer shall pay to the employee wages for 8 ||each hour the employee works. An employer shall not require an employee to work - 9 || without wages during a trial or break-in period.” 10 35. Nevada law does not permit the averaging of minimum wages over the 11 || course of the workweek. See /n re: Amazon.com v. Busk, 905 F.3d 387, 406-07 (6th Cir. 3 25 12 ||2018). Each hour worked must be compensated at least at the requisite minimum wage 5 13 ||rate. 14 36. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs and all other members of the Training : 15 ||Class for all time spent attending required training sessions, Defendants failed to pay ES 16 || Plaintiffs and members of the Training Class at least the Constitutionally required 3 17 || minimum wage for all the compensable hours they worked. 18 37. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and for all Training Class 19 || Members payment by Defendants at the minimum wage rate of pay or their regular hourly 20 ||rate, whichever is higher, including all overtime premiums if applicable, for all hours 21 || worked during the relevant time period alleged herein together with attorneys’ fees, 22 ||costs, and interest, and all other damages, as provided by law. 23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 24 Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of NRS § 608.016 and 25 NRS § 608.140 26 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Training Class Against Defendants) 27 38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 28 || above in the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. -11- 1 39. NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action for 2 || unpaid wages. 3 40. NRS 608.016, entitled, “Payment for each hour of work; trial or break-in 4 || period not excepted,” states that: “An employer shall pay to the employee wages for each 5S ||hour the employee works. An employer shall not require an employee to work without 6 || wages during a trial or break-in period.” 7 41. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs and all other members of the Training 8 || Class for all time spent attending and completing required training sessions, Defendants 9 □□ failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Training Class for all the compensable hours 10 || they worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016. 11 42. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and for all Training Class 3 25 12 ||Members payment by Defendants at their regular rate of pay, or any applicable overtime 5 13 || premium rate, whichever is higher, for all hours worked but not paid during the relevant 14 || time period alleged herein, together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest as provided “3 : 15 || by law. ES 16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 17 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of NRS § 608.018 and NRS § 608.140 18 || (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nevada Regular Rate Class Against Defendants) 19 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 20 || above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21 44. NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action to sue 22 || for unpaid wages. 23 45. NRS 608.018(1) provides as follows: 24 An employer shall pay 1 1/2 times an employee’s regular wage rate whenever an employee receives 25 compensation for employment at a rate less than 1 1/2 times the minimum rate set forth in NRS 608.250 works: (a) More 26 than 40 hours in any scheduled week of work; or (b) More than 27 8 hours in any workday unless by mutual agreement the employee works a scheduled 10 hours per day for 4 calendar 28 days within any scheduled week of work. -12- 1 46. NRS 608.018(2) provides as follows: 2 An employer shall pay 1 1/2 times an employee’s regular wage rate whenever an employee receives 3 compensation for employment at a rate not less than 1 1/2 4 times the minimum rate set forth in NRS 608.250 works more than 40 hours in any scheduled week of work. ° 47. The “regular rate” under Nevada is the same as defined under federal law. 6 See NAC 608.125(2) (“If an employee is paid by salary, piece rate or any other wage rate except for a wage rate based on an hour of time, the rate of compensation for the 8 purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 608.018 is determined by dividing the 9 amount paid to an employee in a week by the number of hours worked by the employee "0 during the week.”). ; E " 48. Based on the allegations set forth above, Defendants failed to include nona discretionary compensation in the form of Guaranteed Down Rate wages in the regular 4 rate of pay for Plaintiffs and all members of the Nevada Regular Rate Class. > 5 49. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and all Nevada Regular Rate AG Class Members that Defendants pay Plaintiffs and Nevada Regular Rate Class Members =e their full overtime wages at the applicable legal rate of pay during the relevant time period together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, as provided by law. "8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION "9 Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing in Violation of NRS § 608.020-.050 and 20 NRS § 608.140 a" (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Against 22 Defendants) 2s 50. ‘Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs 2a above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 2 51. NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action for 26 unpaid wages. Plaintiff has made a demand for unpaid wages upon Defendant pursuant 27 to NRS 608.140, but satisfactory payment was not received. [28] Be 1 52. NRS 608.020 provides that “[w]henever an employer discharges an 2 ||employee, the wages and compensation earned and unpaid at the time of such 3 || discharge shall become due and payable immediately.” 4 53. NRS 608.040(1)(a-b), in relevant part, imposes a penalty on an employer 5 || who fails to pay a discharged or quitting employee: “Within 3 days after the wages or 6 ||compensation of a discharged employee becomes due; or on the day the wages or 7 ||compensation is due to an employee who resigns or quits, the wages or compensation 8 || of the employee continues at the same rate from the day the employee resigned, quit, or 9 discharged until paid for 30 days, whichever is less.” 10 54. NRS 608.012 defines the term “wages” to specifically include “[a]mounts 11 || due to a discharged employee or to an employee who resigns or quits pursuant to NRS £2 12 |/608.040." 5 13 55. NRS 608.050(1) further grants each discharged or laid-off employee the 14 right to continue to “charge and collect wages in the sum agreed upon in the contract of : 15 ||}employment for each day the employer is in default, until the employee is paid in full, ES 16 || without rendering any service therefor; but the employee shall cease to draw such wages 3 17 || or salary 30 days after such default,” while NRS 608.050(2) provides “[e]very employee 18 ||... a lien as provided in NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, and all other rights and 19 ||remedies for the protection and enforcement of such salary or wages as the employee 20 || would have been entitled to had the employee rendered services therefor in the manner 21 || as last employed.” 22 56. By failing to pay Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Collective and the 23 ||Nevada Regular Rate and Training Classes their full wages due and owing to them, 24 || Defendants have failed to timely remit all wages due and owing to Wages Due and Owing 25 ||Sub-Class Members. 26 57. Despite demand, Defendants willfully refuse and continue to refuse to pay 27 ||Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Members all the wages that were due and owing upon 28 || the termination of their employment. -14- 1 58. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for all Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class 2 ||Members that Defendants pay Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Members thirty (30) 3 ||days wages under NRS 608.140 and 608.040, and an additional thirty (30) days wages 4 ||under NRS 608.140 and 608.050, together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest as 5 || provided by law. 6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7 Wherefore Plaintiffs, by themselves and on behalf of all members of the Collective 8 ||/and all Classes, pray for relief as follows relating to their class and collective action - 9 || allegations: 10 1. For an order conditionally certifying the action under the FLSA and 11 providing notice to all similarly situated employees so they may participate 3 25 12 in the lawsuit; 5 13 2. For an order certifying this action as a class action on behalf the proposed 14 Nevada state law Classes and providing notice to all Class Members so : 15 they may participate in this lawsuit; ES 16 3. For an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Representatives of the Collective 3 17 and Classes and their counsel as Collective and Class Counsel; 18 4. For damages according to proof for overtime wages at the correct legal 19 rate of pay under federal law; 20 5. For liquidated damages for the improper overtime payments; 21 6. For damages according to proof for overtime wages at the correct legal 22 rate of pay under state law; 23 7. For continuation wages; 24 8. For a lien on the properties where Plaintiffs and all Nevada Class Members 25 labored; 26 9. For interest as provided by law at the maximum legal rate; 27 10. For reasonable attorneys’ fees authorized by statute; 28 11. For costs of suit incurred herein; -15- 1 12. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 2 13. | For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 3 DATED: March 28, 2024 HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 4 /s/ Joshua R. Hendrickson Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar No. 12225 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 8 mark@thiermanbuck.com Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 9 josh@thiermanbuck.com 5 Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 3 10 leah@thiermanbuck.com Ye £8 16 = [28] -16-