Unpaid Wages Case Results

Six employees worked for a corner market, gas station and check cashing store. The store almost exclusively hired immigrants, many of whom were undocumented workers, had no social security numbers or had various other paperwork problems with regard to their legal employment status. Many of these employees worked in excess of 70 hours per week, but the company refused to pay them overtime rates for the hours in excess of 40 per week. Whenever employees brought this to the company’s attention, the owner of the company would remind them of their legal status and the fact that they would have a hard time finding another job. Loren & Mercer brought suit on behalf of all six employees, one of which had no social security number and had been getting paid in his brother’s name. As a result, the clients obtained a gross settlement of well in excess of $100,000. Moreover, the employer changed its practices with regards to its other employees and began paying them proper overtime.

Six employees worked as waiters for a popular Miami restaurant. The company paid them an hourly rate of $3.50, taking advantage of the tip credit which allows a company to pay tipped employees less than the minimum wage as long as their accumulated tips bring their hourly rate above the minimum wage. However, at the end of each day, the company would take 1% of each waiter’s total sales for the day and remove that from their accumulated tips. This money was then used to pay a bonus to the managers and assistant managers. However, employers who take advantage of the reduced tip credit rate are not allowed to keep a portion of the tips for management. As a result, Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the six employees and eventually obtained a gross settlement of just under $100,000 on behalf of those employees.

Employee was a single mother who had fled an abusive husband and was living in a local shelter with her son while doing construction cleanup work for a local contractor. While working on a job for Miami-Dade County, employee was approached by a county enforcement supervisor who asked how much the employee was being paid per hour and whether she was being paid time and one half overtime rates for her overtime hours. Employee had an honest conversation with the code enforcement supervisor and admitted that she was being paid minimum wage and was not being paid time and one half for her overtime hours. When the code enforcement supervisor brought this to the employer’s attention and explained that the county had a “living wage” ordinance that required companies working on county projects to pay a higher hourly rate and to pay time and one half for overtime, the company subsequently fired the employee. Loren & Mercer brought suit on behalf of the employee, but the employer went out of business immediately thereafter. However, Loren & Mercer was able to persuade the general contractor of the county project to pay the employee her unpaid wages. Because of the employee’s dire circumstances, Loren & Mercer waved its entire fee in order to make this settlement possible.

A maintenance technician worked for an air conditioning repair company that required him to arrive at work every day at 8 o'clock am. However, he was then required to wait while the company arranged its orders and decided which technicians would go to which job. The maintenance technicians were not allowed to leave the company promises until they were assigned a job, but the company did not pay them for their time until they received their first assignment. Sometimes the maintenance technicians would wait hours for their first assignment but were not paid for that time. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and were able to find other employees who confirmed that the technicians were not paid from 8:00 am until the time that they received their first job, despite the fact that the company required them to be there. As a result, we were able to obtain a substantial settlement for the employee.

A property maintenance employee worked for an apartment complex and lived on site at the facility. Because he lived on site, he was often asked to handle emergencies that arose for tenants of the apartment complex. However, the apartment complex refused to pay him overtime pay for these additional hours. Moreover, each of the maintenance employees was “on call” on a rotating basis. While the other employees received overtime pay when they were called to the facility for tenant repairs, the company refused to pay our client for his additional time because he lived on site at the facility. Then, after a new manager was hired, the company stopped paying overtime to any of the maintenance employees for “on call” work. As a result, the other employees refused to work their "on call" shifts and our client was asked to do even more overtime work without pay. Loren & Mercer brought suit on behalf of the employee and were able to obtained a settlement for the full amount being claimed by the employee plus “liquidated damages” in equal amount.

Client worked for a road side assistance company that sub-contracted to AAA. When he first began working for the company, he was paid minimum wage for the first 40 hours, plus time and one half overtime for any hours in excess of 40 per week. After approximately four months on the job, the company told him that they were going to make him a salaried employee and that they expected him to work 12 hours per day, 5 days per week for $300 per week. Moreover, they expected him to work a sixth 12 hour day for an additional $70 in cash. When the client inquired about overtime, the company told him that he was not owed overtime because he was now a salaried employee. The client did not punch a time clock, and had no documentary evident to support his claim. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the client and the employer immediately settled the claim.

Client worked as a mail processor for the United States Postal Service. At some point during her employment, the government made a payroll processing error and the direct deposit of her two week paycheck was not received. The client worked another 4 days while attempting to resolve this matter, but was unable to do so. As a result, the client was unable to pay her bills and missed the following day due to stress headaches. Because this was over the available number of sick days for the year, the client knew that it would cost her the job and so she also resigned. Thereafter, the client spent several more weeks trying to resolve the matter for unpaid wages but was met with repeated excuses and delays. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the client to recover her unpaid wages. The Postal Service then called the client and told her that they would show her status as having been terminated rather than having resigned, unless she dropped her lawsuit. At the end of the case, Loren & Mercer recovered the full amount owed to the client plus liquidated damages in equal amount, and forced the Postal Service to change the client’s employment record to reflect that she resigned.

Employee worked as an oil change specialist for a large auto dealership in Broward County. Employee was unhappy with the behavior of his direct manager and quit his job as a result. When he did, the company refused to give him his last paycheck until he returned the company uniforms that they claimed were issued to him when he first began his employment. The employee informed the company that he had already returned all the shirts that were issued to him and that he had never been issued any pants. However, the company insisted that he had been issued pants and persisted in refusing to issue his last paycheck. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and found the person who was responsible for laundering the uniforms for employees at the company. That person confirmed that he had never laundered pants given to him by that employee. Shortly thereafter, the company agreed to pay the full amount claimed by the employee plus an equal amount in “liquidated damages.”

Employee worked for a roofing company located in Pompano Beach. He punched in and out every day, but his paychecks were docked 45 minutes per day for lunch. Client never clocked in and out for lunch, and rarely received an actual break for lunch. When he did get a break for lunch, he estimated that it was never more than 10 minutes in length. Employee did not have copies of any of his timecards showing the fact that he worked through his lunches. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and recovered approximately 75% of his estimated unpaid overtime.

Employee worked as an administrative assistant for a Miami medical provider. Initially the employer agreed to pay her $16 per hour but refused to pay her overtime on those occasions when she worked more than 40 hours in one week. Moreover, after approximately three months, the employer told her that they were going to start paying her on a salary basis. Her new salary was equal to the hourly rate times 40 hours per week. However, once the employee was on salary, the employer began requiring her to work substantially more hours but still refused to pay her for her overtime. Shortly thereafter, the employer asked the employee to participate in billing Medicare and Medicaid for services that had not actually been performed. When the client refused to along with this scheme, the doctor fired her. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and recovered approximately $7,000 in unpaid overtime.

Client was a cook at a local restaurant in the North Miami Beach area. Not only did the employer refused to pay overtime rates for hours in excess of 40 per week, but sometimes employee would work as many as 60 hours and only get paid for 40. Employee had no copies of his timecards, but stated that the employer used a computerize time keeping system. On one occasion the employee took an empty box from the premises and put it in his car for use in helping him move to the new apartment. At that time, a co-worker told the owner that the employee had stolen stereo equipment belonging to the DJ and taken it to his car. As a result, employee was suspended for one week without pay. When he came back to the job after his one week suspension, the employer told him that he was being fired for having stolen the stereo equipment. The employer also refused to issue the employee his final paycheck unless he returned the allegedly stolen equipment and the employer stated that they had video tape evidence of the theft. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and the defense attorney again claimed that employer had video tape evidence that employee had stolen equipment from the employer. Loren & Mercer was ultimately able to recover client’s last paycheck and a substantial amount of overtime, despite employer’s unfounded allegations of theft and video tape evidence showing the employee caring what he had always claimed was an empty box to his car.

Employee worked as a cook for a restaurant that had both sit down dining and take-out business. The take-out business was incorporated as a separate company. Employee regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not paid at overtime rates for his overtime hours. Instead, employee would be paid his first 40 hours per week on one check from the sit down restaurant and all of his overtime hours would be paid on a separate check at straight time rates from the take-out business. Loren & Mercer filed suit on behalf of the employee and obtained payment of the full amount being claimed by employee plus “liquidated damages” in equal amount.

Employee moved down from South Carolina to take a job as a foreman for a local construction company in Broward County, Florida. Approximately six weeks after he began working for the company, the owner of the company refused to pay him for his last two weeks of work and accused him of having stolen plywood from a job site. Loren & Mercer filed suit on the employee’s behalf to recover his last two weeks of pay, despite the fact that the company had closed its doors and had failed to maintain its legal status with the State of Florida. When the employee had first accepted employment with the company, the owner of the company had handed him a business card which listed not only her company but also a much larger construction company on the face of the card. Moreover, when the company first refused to pay the employee’s last two weeks of work, the employer called the larger company and spoke to someone who was fully aware of his employment status with the smaller company and told him that they would look into the matter and get back to him. During the course of litigation, Loren & Mercer discovered that the smaller company was not properly licensed and was using the contractor’s license of the larger company. As a result, Loren & Mercer amended the lawsuit to include the larger company. Soon thereafter, the larger company agreed to pay the amounts due to the employee.