PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASSHERMAN DIVISIONBILLY HORTON, ROBERT MORRIS, §ROBERT PRUNTY, ALAN SPURGIN, §DAVID RATCLIFF, and SAM BIGHAM, §individually and on behalf of similarly situated § Civil No. 4:10-cv-372individuals, §Plaintiffs, § ECF-v- §§CITY OF PLANO, §Defendant. §PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTIONTO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: NOW COME Billy Horton, Robert Morris, Robert Prunty, Alan Spurgin, David Ratcliff,and Sam Bigham and file this Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint against the City of Plano.This case involves working off the clock. At issue is the fact that the Plano did notcompensate Plaintiffs
1
for purported breaks and purported on call time during which Plaintiffswere required to monitor their radio. Plaintiffs must listen to all messages relayed over the radio,and respond appropriately when a relevant message is relayed. Plaintiffs contend that such timeis compensable time because they have to continuously listen for relevant messages. Pleading inthe alternative, even if all such time is not compensable, Plano must at least compensatePlaintiffs for time spent actually listening to calls and responding to relevant calls.Furthermore, Plano promised to pay Plaintiffs the greater of one hour or the actual timeworked when they perform work during on call hours. Plaintiff has failed to comply with thisobligation. Plano also promised to pay Plaintiffs for lunch breaks where they are required to
1
Plaintiffs, as used in this pleading, refers to the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class.
Case 4:10-cv-00372-RAS -DDB Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION – Page 2
work through lunch. Under both the FLSA and state law theories, Plano has failed tocompensate (1) Plaintiffs for at least one hour whenever they are called to work during on calltime and for (2) lunch breaks.For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, courtcosts, interest, and any other relief provided by law.I.JURISDICTION & VENUE1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this complaint and to adjudicatethe claims stated herein under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action being brought under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because it is amunicipality in the State of Texas.3. Venue is appropriate because the Defendant employed one or more workers atissue in this case in Collin County, Texas.II.PARTIES4. Billy Horton, Robert Morris, Robert Prunty, Alan Spurgin, David Ratcliff, andSam Bigham, the Named Plaintiffs, are individuals who performed work for the Defendantduring the past three years.5. Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situatedemployees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (See consent forms attached as Exhibit A.) Plaintiffsand the similarly situated employees are individuals who were, or are, (1) employed by the City
Case 4:10-cv-00372-RAS -DDB Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION – Page 3
of Plano within three years of this suit, (2) were paid hourly, and (3) were not paid for breaks or on call time where they were required to monitor their radio.6. The City of Plano is a municipality in Texas. Plano is an “employer” within themeaning of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).III.CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an employer within themeaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(d).8. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been a public agency within themeaning of Section 3(x) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(x).9. Defendant and Plaintiffs are covered by the overtime provisions of the FLSA.10. Plaintiffs are engaged in commerce.11. Plaintiffs are required to monitor their radios during working hours to respond torelevant assignments and communications.12. Not all communication on Plaintiffs’ radios is relevant to their specific work.13. Plaintiffs are required to monitor their radios over their lunch breaks.14. Because Plaintiffs must monitor their radios over lunch they are not relieved fromwork and the lunchtime is compensable time.15. On or about the end of 2009, Plano began compensating Plaintiffs for lunchtimehours.16. Plano did not and has not compensated Plaintiffs for past lunch breaks thatoccurred before the 2009 change in pay practices.17. Plaintiffs are required to work on call in weeks in which they are assigned on callduties.
Case 4:10-cv-00372-RAS -DDB Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Plano Labor Suit
District Court documents: Horton et al. versus City of Plano
621
Reads
0
Readcasts
9.4K
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
