Tattle Tale Atlanta Lawsuit - Atlanta Wage Theft

Case 1:24-cv-00174-TWT Document 1 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MIA GLESSING, Individually and on

behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
v.
TATTLE TAIL, INC. d/b/a “Tattletale

Lounge, DENIS KAUFMAN, and
RICHARD R. SCHRONCE,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff MIA GLESSING (“GLESSING”), Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, brings this Collective Action Complaint against
Defendants Tattle Tail, Inc. d/b/a “Tattletale Lounge” or “the Tattle Tale,” Denis
Kaufman, and Richard Schronce (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff and the collective she represents are former or current
waitresses of TATTLE TAIL, INC. d/b/a Tattle Tale Lounge or “the Tattle Tale,”
DENIS KAUFMAN (“Kaufman”), and RICHARD SCHRONCE (“SCHRONCE”).
2. Defendants herein, TATTLE TAIL, INC, KAUFMAN, and
1
SCHRONCE, own and/or operate an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Fulton
County, Georgia known as the “Tattle Tale” or “Tattletale Lounge.”
3. DENIS KAUFMAN (“Kaufman”) is the owner, CEO, and CFO of
Tattle Tail, Inc and the owner of the Tattle Tale.
4. RICHARD SCHRONCE (“Schronce”) is and was at all times relevant
hereto the general manager of the Tattle Tale.
5. Defendants herein failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
waitresses the minimum wage and overtime wage for all hours worked in violation
of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et.
seq. (“FLSA”).
6. Defendants also required Plaintiff and similarly situated waitresses to
make certain payments to Tattle Tale employees and others which caused Plaintiffs’
(and those similarly situated) wages to drop below the minimum wage and
applicable overtime wage, thereby constituting illegal deductions under the FLSA;
these unlawful deductions were an illegal retention of earned tips under the FLSA.
7. Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to contribute
to an unlawful tip pool which caused Plaintiff’s wages, and the wages of the
collective, to drop below the minimum wage. Defendants took a tip credit on
waitresses hourly wages and paid Plaintiff and the collective the tipped wage without
2
establishing a legal tip pool, dropping Plaintiff and the collective below the
minimum wage for all hours worked.
8. As a result of Defendants’ violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the
similarly situated waitresses she represents seek all unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, recovery of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all
or a substantial portion of the events forming the basis of this action occurred in this
District. Defendants’ club is located in this District, and is specifically located in
Fulton County, Georgia, and Plaintiff and the collective action members worked in
and/or are residents of this District.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees were or are
employed as waitresses by Defendants at the Tattle Tale and each of them were and
are “employees” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
12. Plaintiff has consented in writing to assert claims under the FLSA. As
3
this case proceeds, it is likely that other individuals will sign consent forms and join
this action as opt-in Plaintiffs.
13. The collective action members are current or were former waitresses
who are/were employed by Defendants as waitresses at the Tattle Tale from three
years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the present.
14. Tattle Tail, Inc. is a Georgia Corporation with its principal place of
business located at 2075 Piedmont Road NW, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia
30342. At all times mentioned herein, Tattle Tail, Inc. was an “employer” of
Plaintiffs and the collective action members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. § 203(d), (g). Defendant Tattle Tail, Inc. may be served by serving its
registered agent, Denis Kaufman at 2075-B Piedmont Road, Atlanta, Fulton County,
Georgia, 30324.1
15. Defendant Denis Kaufman (“Kaufman”) is the Owner of the Tattle Tale
and Owner, CEO, and CFO of Tattle Tail, Inc. He is a resident of Pompano Beach,
Florida. Kaufman acted directly or indirectly on behalf of Tattle Tail, Inc. with
respect to Plaintiff and the collective action members’ compensation and other terms
and conditions of employment and, at all times mentioned herein was an “employer”
1
Denis Kaufman resides in Pompano Beach, Florida. Tattle Tale, Inc. may also be
served through Denis Kaufman at 3270 Lakeview Drive, Pompano Beach, Florida
33062.
4
or joint employer of Plaintiff and the collective action members within the meaning
of the FLSA. Defendant Kaufman may be served at 3270 Lakeview Drive, Pompano
Beach, Florida 33062 or wherever he may be found.
16. Defendant Richard Schronce is the General Manager of the Tattle Tale
and, upon information and belief, a resident of Dekalb County, Georgia. Schronce
acted directly or indirectly on behalf of Tattle Tail, Inc. with respect to Plaintiff and
the collective action members’ compensation and other terms and conditions of
employment and, at all times mentioned herein was an “employer” or joint employer
of Plaintiff and the collective action members within the meaning of the FLSA. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Schronce may be served at 1132 Gail Drive, NE,
Brookhaven, Georgia 30319 or wherever he may be found.
17. Plaintiff Mia Glessing is a resident of Cherokee County, Georgia and
was employed by Defendants at the Tattle Tale from, upon information and belief,
March of 2021 through February 4, 2023. Glessing brings this action individually
and on behalf of the collective action members.
ENTERPRISE COVERAGE
18. At all times material hereto, Tattle Tail. Inc. had an annual gross volume of
sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise
5
taxes at the retail level that are separately stated) within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
19. At all times material hereto, two or more employees of Tattle Tail, Inc. used
or handled the following items (among others) that moved in interstate
commerce that are necessary for performing its commercial purpose: cash,
credit card machines, food, liquor, spirits, computers, office furniture, office
technology, beer, and glassware.
20. At all times material hereto, Tattle Tail, Inc. had two or more "employees
handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been
moved in or produced for commerce by any person" within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A), including multiple employees regularly selling
alcoholic beverages produced and shipped from outside Georgia.
21. At all times material hereto, Tattle Tail, Inc. was an "enterprise engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning
of FLSA § 6(a), 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a).
22. At all times material hereto, Tattle Tail, Inc. had 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 that are separately stated) within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
6
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
23. At all times relevant hereto, Tattle Tale, Inc. and Kaufman owned and
operated a night club under the trade name "Tattle Tale" located at 2075
Piedmont Rd. NW Atlanta, Georgia
24. At all times relevant hereto, the Tattle Tale featured entertainment in the form
of nude or semi-nude female dancing.
25. As waitress at the Tattle Tale, Plaintiff Glessing and the collective she
represents was/were responsible for taking orders from customers and serving
cocktails to customers.
26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants shared control of their employees,
including Plaintiff and the collective.
27. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the collective have been under the
direct or indirect control of all Defendants with respect to their duties at the
Tattle Tale.
28. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants (and others whose names and
identities may be discovered during discovery of this action) have exercised
joint control over Plaintiff and the collective she represents, including
significant decisions affecting the employment and compensation of Plaintiff
7
and the collective action members, including the decisions to require Plaintiff
and the collective to participate in an unlawful tip pool, and to pay Plaintiff
and the collective less than the minimum wage as required by the FLSA, and
seize their tips in violation of the TIPA and the FLSA.
29. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the
interest of each other with respect to Plaintiff and the collective.
30. At all times relevant hereto, Tattle Tale, Inc., was an "employer" of Plaintiff
Glessing and the similarly situated collective within the meaning of FLSA §
3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Glessing and the collective was/were an
"employee" of Tattle Tale, Inc. within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29
U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
32. At all times relevant hereto, Kaufman was an "employer" of Plaintiff Glessing
and the collective within the meaning of FLSA § 3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
"employee[s]" of Kaufman within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C.
§ 203(e)(1).
34. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce was an "employer" of Plaintiff Glessing
and the collective within the meaning of FLSA § 3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
8
"employee" (or employees) of Schronce within the meaning of FLSA §
3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
36. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Kaufman was a corporate officer of Tattle
Tale, Inc..
37. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Kaufman was the owner of Tattle Tale, Inc.
38. At all times relevant hereto, Kaufman was involved in the day-to-day
operations of the Tattle Tale and Tattle Tale, Inc.
39. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Schronce was involved in the day-to-day
operations of the Tattle Tale and Tattle Tale, Inc.
40. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants had the power to hire and fire
waitresses at the Tattle Tale.
41. At all times relevant hereto, Kaufman held himself out publicly as the owner
of the Tattle Tale.
42. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce held himself out as the general manager
of Tattle Tale.
43. At all times relevant hereto, Tattle Tale, Inc., and Kaufman exercised
managerial authority with respect to Plaintiff and the members of the
collective.
9
44. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce exercised managerial authority with
respect to Plaintiffs and the members of the collective.
45. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Kaufman scheduled Plaintiffs' working hours
or supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs' working hours.
46. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce scheduled Plaintiffs' working hours or
supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs' working hours.
47. At all times relevant hereto, Kaufman exercised managerial authority over the
work rules at Tattle Tale.
48. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce exercised managerial authority over the
work rules at Tattle Tale.
49. At all times relevant hereto, Tattle Tale, Inc., and Kaufman exercised
managerial authority over Plaintiffs' compensation, and the compensation of
those similarly situated.
50. At all times relevant hereto, Schronce exercised managerial authority over
Plaintiffs' compensation, and the compensation of those similarly situated.
ADDITIONAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
51. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Mia Glessing began her
employment with the Defendants in approximately March of 2021. Plaintiff and the
collective were employed by Defendants as waitresses at the Tattle Tale during the
10
past three (3) years. Defendants own, operate, and/or manage the Tattle Tale in
Atlanta.
52. Customers at Tattle Tale regularly leave discretionary gratuities (“tips”)
for the benefit of Plaintiff and collective; the tips left by customers belong
exclusively to the plaintiffs to whom tips are given.
53. Upon information and belief, prior to approximately July 1, 2021, and
because Plaintiff and the collective regularly received tips from Defendants’
customers, Defendants classified Plaintiff and the collective as “tipped employees”
and took a “tip credit” against Defendant’s obligations to pay Plaintiff and the
collective the required $7.25 per hour minimum wage required under the FLSA.
54. Prior to approximately July 1, 2021, because of their attempts to take
advantage of the FLSA’s tip credit regulations, Defendants instead paid waitresses
$2.13 per hour for the hours worked.
55. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants required each
waitress (including Plaintiff and the collective) to contribute, upon information and
belief, between fifteen percent (15%) to thirty-percent (30%) of their earnings to an
illegal tip pool.
56. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the tip-pool was divided
amongst employees who are not customarily or regularly tipped and managers at the
11
Tattle Tale. Managers and owners are not tipped employees and Plaintiff and the
collective cannot be required to give a percentage of their tips to them.
57. Because a portion of the tip-pool was shared with
employers/management and/or other others who are not regularly or customarily
tipped, the tip pool is invalid under the FLSA.
58. While Defendant can require Plaintiff and the collective to give a
portion of their tips to other tipped employees as part of a valid tip-pooling
arrangement, Defendants cannot require Plaintiff and the collective to give any
portion of their tips to non-tipped employees or managers, and Defendants cannot
retain the tips. The FLSA provides that an employer may not keep tips received by
its employees for any purposes, regardless of whether the employer takes a tip credits
against its minimum wage and overtime obligations.
59. To the extent Defendants were using the tip-pool as a tip-credit against
their minimum wage and overtime obligations prior to approximately July 1, 2021,
Defendants are not entitled to tip credit for the difference between the “tipped wage”
and the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
58. Where Plaintiff and the collective were required to contribute to a tip
pool that includes employees who do not regularly and customarily receive tips, and
a tip pool which included management participation, the Plaintiff and the collective
12
prior to approximately July 1, 2021 are owed $7.25 per hour and owed
reimbursement of the amount of tips which were improperly taken by the Tattle Tale.
59. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, where Plaintiff and the
collective were required to contribute to a tip pool that includes employees who do
not regularly and customarily receive tips, and a tip pool which included
management participation, the Plaintiff and the collective are entitled to
reimbursement of all tips which were retained by Defendants.
60. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately
three to four night shifts per week.
61. Plaintiff and the collective action members who worked nights began
each night shift by approximately 9:00pm2 and remained at work until checkout was
completed at or after approximately 3:30 am.
62. Defendants did not pay the waitresses, including the Plaintiff and the
collective action members, for all time spent on the job.
63. After the club closed at 3:00 am on each night shift, Defendants
required Plaintiff and the collective waitresses to go through a check-out process at
the end of each shift, during which the waitresses is required to make certain
payments club management.
2
Some night shifts began at 7:00 pm.
13
64. Defendants knew that waitresses, including the Collective Action
Plaintiffs and collective action members, were not being compensated for the time
incurred on the job during the club’s business hours or after the club closed each
night.
65. Each work week in which or the Plaintiff or collective was required to
work uncompensated and “off the clock” (including after the club closed), the
waitress’s wage dropped below the minimum wage for all hours worked.
66. Waitresses were routinely tipped by customers using “T-bucks.” At all
times relevant to this action, Defendants required each waitresses including Plaintiff
and the collective, to pay, upon information and belief, a ten (10%) fee to convert
customer tips paid by credit card (known as T-bucks) into cash.
67. The “t-bucks to cash” fee was retained by the Defendants.
68. In each week Plaintiff or any collective member paid the required “t-
bucks to cash conversion fee,” the waitresses’ wages were dropped below the
minimum wage.
69. Payment of the “T-bucks to cash conversion fee” constitutes unlawful
deductions under the FLSA, violates the “free and clear” requirement of the FLSA
and constitutes an illegal kick back under the FLSA.
14
70. The amounts paid to Tattle Tale waitresses by its customers are not
included in Tattle Tale, Inc.’s gross receipts or accounting records, are not taken into
possession by Defendants and distributed to Tattle waitresses.
71. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the collective were
not exempt from the maximum hour requirements of the FLSA by reason of any
FLSA exemption.
72. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants did not employ
Plaintiff or any member of the collective in a bona fide professional capacity within
the meaning of 29 USC 213 (a)(1).
73. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs or
any member of the collective in a bona fide executive capacity within the meaning
of 29 U.S.C. 213 (a)(1).
74. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiff or any
member of the collective in a bona fide administrative capacity within the meaning
of 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1).
75. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and/or the collective action
members did not supervise two or more employees.
15
76. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiff or any
member of the collective in the capacity of an “outside salesman” so as to be exempt
from the minimum and maximum hour requirements of 29 USC 213(a)(1).
77. Upon information and belief, either Defendants failed to maintain, or
Defendants maintained inaccurate records of, credit card conversion fees, time
sheets, tip-out records, tip pool contributions, tip pool records and records reflecting
actual hours worked at the Tattle Tale as to each waitress, including Plaintiff and the
collective.
78. Defendants maintain, and maintained incomplete records of time
worked by Plaintiff and the collective.
79. Defendants willfully disregard and purposefully evade record keeping
requirements of the FLSA by failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets and
payroll records for waitresses. Defendants’ failure to maintain records of the time
worked and amounts paid as fines, tips, gratuities and service charges violate the
record keeping requirements of 29 CFR Part 516
80. Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact that their
compensation policies violated the FLSA.
16
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
81. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not compensating
waitresses for the time they spent at work.
82. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not compensating
waitresses for all time spent at the Tattle Tale, including (but not limited to) time
spent working during the hours the club was open and during the check-out process
at the end of each shift.
83. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring waitresses to
pay T-buck to cash conversion fees.
84. Prior to mid-2021, Defendants only paid waitresses $2.13 per hour, and
maintained a policy and practice of requiring waitresses to participate in an unlawful
tip pool. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants required all
waitresses to contribute to an unlawful tip pool.
85. Like Plaintiff, there are members of the putative Collective action who
are or were subject to the same FLSA violations outlined herein. These individuals
would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the
opportunity to join by filing their written consent. Defendants can readily identify
17
these similarly situated waitresses through their business records and produce their
contact information to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
86. The putative class includes:
All waitresses who were employed by Defendants at any time during

the three years prior to the date of filing of this lawsuit.
COUNT I
MINIMUM WAGE CLAIM (Claims for Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206)
87. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 86 above are incorporated herein by
reference.
88. Each Defendant is an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
89. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of
“goods” for “commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.
90. Tattle Tail, Inc. operates an enterprise engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in
commerce, and because its annual gross volume of sales made is more than
$500,000.
91. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and the collective action members
were or are employees covered by the FLSA and entitled to the minimum wage
protections set forth in FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206; Plaintiff consents to sue in this action
18
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the consent to sue executed by Plaintiff is
attached to Complaint.
92. Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record
keeping requirements and failed to maintain proper, complete, and accurate
timesheets and work records of Plaintiff and the collective; as a result of Defendants’
failure to make, keep and maintain records under the FLSA, such records do not
exist or insufficient to determine wages, hours, tip-pool contributions, fees, fines,
and other conditions of employment.
93. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated the
minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206.
94. At all times material hereto, Defendants required Plaintiff to pay
kickbacks to Defendants and their managers, as described herein.
95. Upon information and belief, prior to July 1, 2021, Plaintiff and the
collective earned $2.13 per hour working for defendants.
96. Because Defendants cannot claim the tip credit against their minimum
wage obligations, Defendants must pay Plaintiff and the collective the full minimum
wage ($7.25 per hour) for all hours worked.
97. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants knowingly and willfully
maintained an illegal tip-pool, allowing managers and non-tipped employees to
19
participate.
98. Defendants must pay Plaintiff and the collective all retained tips.
99. Defendants willful violations of the U.S. Department of Labor’s
regulations governing tip-pools i.e. (1) allowing employees who are not traditionally
or customarily tipped to participate, (2) allowing managers to participate, (3) failing
to distribute all of the tip pool to customarily tipped employees (and thus illegally
retaining a portion of the tip pool for management), constitutes a violation of 29
U.S.C. 206.
100. Defendants' requirement that plaintiff and the similarly situated
collective pay “t-bucks to cash conversion” fees to Defendants and their agents and
employees violated the "free and clear" requirement of 29 CFR 531.35.
101. Defendants’ willful requirement that Plaintiff and other similarly
situated waitresses pay a “T-bucks to cash conversion” charge constitutes an illegal
kickback; Plaintiff and the collective are entitled to reimbursement of all kickbacks
paid to Defendants and their agents and employees, in addition to all other unpaid
wages.
102. Defendants’ willfully required Plaintiff and other similarly situated
waitresses to perform “off the clock” work at the end of each shift, in violation of 29
U.S.C. § 206.
20
103. Defendants owe Plaintiff and those similarly situated back wages in an
amount to be determined at trial for all unpaid but otherwise compensable time
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206 and § 216.
104. Plaintiff and the collective are entitled to liquidated damages in an
amount equal to their unpaid wages, retained tips, and kickbacks paid in accordance
with FLSA § 16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
105. As a result of their underpayment of minimum wages as alleged herein,
Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff and the collective action
members for their litigation costs, including their reasonable attorney's fees in
accordance with FLSA § 16(b); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
106. The federal tip credit regulations expressly prohibit managers,
employers, owners, and non-tipped employees from receiving any amount of tip
received by the tipped employees.
107. The federal tip credit regulations expressly prohibit employers from
keeping tips received by their employees regardless of whether the employer takes
a tip credit under the FLSA.
108. Defendants either consulted these regulations and failed to comply with
them----which demonstrates an intentional violation of the FLSA ---or failed to
consult these regulations which shows a reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff
21
and the collective under the FLSA.
109. Based upon the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly,
intentionally and willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly not paying Plaintiffs and
the collective action members the minimum wage under the FLSA and illegally
retaining tips.
110. The federal regulations expressly prohibits an employer taking a “kick
back” from the employee for the employer’s benefit. Defendants either consulted
these regulations when charging a “t-bucks to cash” conversion fee---which
demonstrates an intentional violation of the FLSA---or failed to consult these
regulations which shows a reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff and the
collective under the FLSA.
111. Throughout the relevant period of this lawsuit, there is no evidence that
Defendants’ conduct that gave rise to this action was in good faith and based on
reasonable grounds. In fact, at all times relevant to this action, Defendants willfully
violated the FLSA knowing that their wage scheme, compensation policies, kick-
back schemes and required tip-pool contributions were illegal.
112. Because Defendants intentionally and willfully violated the FLSA,
Plaintiff and the collective are entitled to (1) their unpaid wages, 2) their retained
tips, and (3) liquidated damages for a period of three years prior to the filing of this
22
Complaint under 29 U.S.C. 255.
113. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff and the collective action
members are entitled to recover from Defendants, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs of the action, including interest, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
COUNT II
UNLAWFUL TAKING OF TIPS (Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203)
114. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 113 above are incorporated by
reference.
115. Each Defendant is an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiff and
each collective action member within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
116. Defendants engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of
“goods” for “commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.
117. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the FLSA because they have employees engaged in commerce and
because its annual gross revenue of sales made is more than $500,000.00.
118. Under TIPA:
[a]n employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purpose
including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees
tips, regardless of whether or not it takes a tip credit.
29 U.S.C. § 203.
23
119. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiff and the collective
action members by Defendants’ customers in the form of requiring waitresses to
participate in an illegal tip pool (as set forth above) and fees to the club and
management, in the form of a “T-bucks to cash” conversion charge, in violation of
TIPA.
120. As a result of Defendants’ willful violation of TIPA, Plaintiff and the
collective are entitled to recover, under the FLSA and TIPA, all tips kept by the
employer, any tip credit claimed by Defendants, an equal amount in liquidated
damages and attorney’s fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of the collective she
represents, respectfully prays that this Court grant relief as follows:
a. Conditionally Certify this as a collective action and issue notice to
collective action members informing them of their right to join this
action;
b. Rule that Defendants’ actions, policies, and practices violated, and
continue to violate, the rights of the Named Plaintiff and others
similarly situated under the FLSA;
c. Rule that Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful;
24
d. As to Count I award Plaintiff and each collective action member who
joins this action judgment for wages at the minimum rate, including the
recovery of all unpaid wages, unlawfully retained tips, as well as
liquidated damages in an amount equal to unpaid wages, liquidated
damages in an equal amount of the unlawfully retained tips, interest and
attorneys’ fees as provided for under the FLSA, against the Defendants
jointly and severally;
e. That Plaintiff and each collective action member who joins this action
be awarded the recovery of all payments reducing the wages below the
minimum wage, including but not limited to the “kickbacks” charged
by Defendants in violation of the FLSA and an additional like amount
in liquidated damages, as well as attorney’s fees against the Defendants
jointly and severally;
f. As to Count II award Plaintiff and any collective member who joins this
lawsuit judgment for the recovery of all tips kept by the employers, the
amount of any tip credit claimed by Defendants, an equal amount in
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney’s fees under the FLSA and
TIPA against the Defendants jointly and severally;
25
g. Award Plaintiff and others similarly situated their reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs of this action, including expert fees;
h. Grant Plaintiffs and the collective action members who join this action
a jury trial on all issues so triable; and
i. Award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January, 2024.
FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC
/s/ Jonah A. Flynn

Jonah A. Flynn
Georgia Bar No. 266555
Counsel for Plaintiffs
4200 Northside Parkway NW
Building One, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30327
Phone/FAX: 404-835-9660
e-mail: jflynn@flynnfirm.com
26
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to F.R.C.P 38, Demand is hereby made for trial by jury on
all issues raised by these pleadings.
/s/ Jonah A. Flynn
27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing pleading complies with
the font and point selections approved by the Court in Local Rule 5.1B. This
pleading has been prepared in Times New Roman font, 14 point.
By: /s/ Jonah A. Flynn
28

Tattle Tale Atlanta Lawsuit - Atlanta Wage Theft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tattle Tale Atlanta Lawsuit - Atlanta Wage Theft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:24-cv-00174-TWT Document 1 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIA GLESSING, Individually and on

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

TATTLE TAIL, INC. d/b/a “Tattletale

PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff MIA GLESSING (“GLESSING”), Individually and on behalf of

those similarly situated, brings this Collective Action Complaint against

Kaufman, and Richard Schronce (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:

1. Plaintiff and the collective she represents are former or current

DENIS KAUFMAN (“Kaufman”), and RICHARD SCHRONCE (“SCHRONCE”).

2. Defendants herein, TATTLE TAIL, INC, KAUFMAN, and

SCHRONCE, own and/or operate an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Fulton

County, Georgia known as the “Tattle Tale” or “Tattletale Lounge.”

3. DENIS KAUFMAN (“Kaufman”) is the owner, CEO, and CFO of

Tattle Tail, Inc and the owner of the Tattle Tale.

4. RICHARD SCHRONCE (“Schronce”) is and was at all times relevant

hereto the general manager of the Tattle Tale.

5. Defendants herein failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated

6. Defendants also required Plaintiff and similarly situated waitresses to

7. Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to contribute

minimum wage for all hours worked.

8. As a result of Defendants’ violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the

wages, recovery of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’

fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

District. Defendants’ club is located in this District, and is specifically located in

and/or are residents of this District.

are “employees” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).

this action as opt-in Plaintiffs.

years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the present.

Beach, Florida 33062 or wherever he may be found.

Brookhaven, Georgia 30319 or wherever he may be found.

17. Plaintiff Mia Glessing is a resident of Cherokee County, Georgia and

and on behalf of the collective action members.

or handled the following items (among others) that moved in interstate

technology, beer, and glassware.

handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been

moved in or produced for commerce by any person" within the meaning of 29

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A), including multiple employees regularly selling

alcoholic beverages produced and shipped from outside Georgia.

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning

of FLSA § 6(a), 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a).

Piedmont Rd. NW Atlanta, Georgia

of nude or semi-nude female dancing.

including Plaintiff and the collective.

identities may be discovered during discovery of this action) have exercised

significant decisions affecting the employment and compensation of Plaintiff

seize their tips in violation of the TIPA and the FLSA.

interest of each other with respect to Plaintiff and the collective.

3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

"employee" of Tattle Tale, Inc. within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29

"employee[s]" of Kaufman within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C.

"employee" (or employees) of Schronce within the meaning of FLSA §

3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).

operations of the Tattle Tale and Tattle Tale, Inc.

operations of the Tattle Tale and Tattle Tale, Inc.

waitresses at the Tattle Tale.

of the Tattle Tale.

managerial authority with respect to Plaintiff and the members of the

respect to Plaintiffs and the members of the collective.

or supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs' working hours.

supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs' working hours.