Eldridge v. Os Restaurant Services, LLC

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00798

COMPLAINT against OS Restaurant Services, LLC with Jury Demand filed by Robert Eldridge.(KMM) filed in State Court on 3/2/17

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8 PageID 53 Filing # 53224394 E - Filed 03 / 02 / 2017 04: 46: 44 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SLYTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO .: Robert Eldridge, Plaintiff, OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC d / b / a OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, Defendant. ma - - - COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Robert Eldridge, individually, by and through the un Jersigned attorney and sues the Defendant OS Restaurant Services, LLC d / b / a Outback Steakhouse (hereinafter sometimes referred to as " Outback Steakhouse"), and allcges as follows: Thc Partics Plaintiff resides in Largo, Florida. Plaintiff ' worked at the Defendant corporation as i server and bartender from approximately June, 2013 through approximately October, 2014. 2. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff has been a tipped employee engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce on behalf of the Defendant. 3. Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the Florida Minimum Wage Act Act ("FMWA") (FMWA") and and Florida Florida Constitution. 8 PageID 54 4. Upon information and helicf, at all matcrial times hereto, Defendant, Outback Steakhouse, was a corporation duly licensed to transact business in the State of Florida. Defendant docs business, has offices, and / or maintained agents for the transaction of its customary business in Pinellas County, Florida. 5. Upon information and beliet, Defendant is an " enterprise engaged in interstate ccmmerce " within the meaning of the FMWA and Florida Constitution. Defendant has eriployees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for ccmmerce by any person and is otherwise a covered entity under the FMWA and Florida Constitution. Jurisdiction and Venue 6. This Court has subject maticr jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. $ 448. 1 10. This is an action for violation of the FMWA with damages between five thousand and fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interests, costs, and attorney's fees. 7. Venue is proper in Pinellas County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47. 051 because acts giving rise to the claims of the Plaintiff occurred within this judicial district, and Defendant regularly conducts business in and has engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein - and, thus, are subject to personal jurisdiction in – this judicial district. Nature of the Action Defendant is the owner of OS Restaurant Services, LLC d / b / a Outback Steakhouse restaurant located in Saint Petersburg, Florida. 9. Plaintiff was employed as a Server by the Defendant, a " Tipped Employce " as 8 PageID 55 defined by the FWMA, from approximately June, 2013 through approximately October, 2014. 10. Fla. Const. Art. X. § 24 (c) states, " for tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003. " 11. Section 3 (m) of the FLSA, as incorporated through the FMWA, permits an employer to take a " tip crcdit " toward its minimum wage obligation for Tipped Employces cqual to the difference between the tipped minimum wage and the applicable state minimum wage. For instance, in 2017 the Florida State Minimum Wage is $ 8. 10, the statutorily permitied tip credit is $ 3. 12, and the tipped minimum wage is $ 5. 08. 12. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to at least the applicable minimum wage for cach hour worked where Defendant improperly applied the tip crcdit, rather than paying Plaintiff regular minimum wage. 13. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the Florida Minimum Wage Act by not paying the wages owed to Plaintiff. 14. Defendant individually and / or through an enterprise or agent, directed and exe cised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 15. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an einployce, in this specific instance a ' server ', rather than the tasks performed at the direction of the Defendant. 16. On February 15, 2017, Defendant was provided by certificd mail written notice ider tifying the applicable minimum wage sought, the estimated work dates for which payment is sought, and the total amount of unpaid wages being sought by Plaintiff as required by Fla. Stat. $ 443. 110 (6) (a), satisfying the Florida Minimum Wage Act pre - suit notification requirement. 8 PageID 56 COUNT I: MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. $ 448. 110 - INCIDENTAL NON - TIPPED LABOR 17. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 18. At all relevant times, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Florida Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. $ 448. 1 10. 19. At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff within the mcaning of the Florida Minimum Wage Aci. 20. Plaintiff brings this action as a former hourly employee of the Defendant who willfully refused to pay a waye during Plaintiff's employment. For time spent during Plaintiff's employmeni, Defendant took a " tip credit " from Plaintiff's wages. Thus, Defendant paid Plaintiff ' at a rate less than the applicable minimum wagc. 21. Pursuant to Fla. Stai. $ 448. 110 and Fla. Consi. An. X, $ 24 (c), a tip credit excmption from Florida's minimum wage requirements may only be taken when thc Employer would otherwise be eligible to do so under the FLSA, as incorporated through the FMWA. 22. Pursuant toU.S. Dept. of Labor, Field Operations Handbook Ch. 30000 (e) (2) ursuant through 30000 (e) (4) statc •29 CFR 531. 56 (e) permits the employer to take a tip credit for time spent in duties related to the tipped occupation of an employce, even though such duties are not by themselves directed toward producing tips, provided such related duties are incidental to the regular duties of the tipped employees and are generally assigned to the tipped cmploycc. For example, duties related 10 the tipped occupation may include a server who docs preparatory or clasing activities, rolls silverware and fills salt and pepper shakers while the restaurant is open, cleans and sets tables, makes coffee, and occasionally washes dishes or glasses. (3) However, 8 PageID 57 where the facts indicate that tipped employees spend a substantial amount of time (i. e ., in excess of 20 percent of the hours worked in the tipped occupation in the workweek) performing such related duties, no tip credit may be taken for the time spent in those duties. All related duties count toward the 20 percent tolerance. (4) Likewise, an employer may not take a tip credit for the time that a tipped employee spends on work that is not related to the tipped occupation. For example, maintenance work (e. g ., cleaning bathrooms and washing windows) are not related to the tipped occupation of a server; such jobs are non - tipped occupations. In this case, the employee is effectively employed in dual jobs. " 23. The Defendant willfully and improperly applied a tip credit to every hour that the Pla intiff worked, even when Plaintiff was clearly engaged in non - tipped tasks exceeding twenty percent 20 %, and when Plaintiff was required to perform non - server duties. 24. Defendant improperly utilized the tip credit and unjustly benefitted by saving the tip credit amount for each hour Plaintiff worked. With this great savings comes great responsibility. Plaintiff was not able to obtain tips or perform tip - generating work while being paid at the reduced tip credit rate, causing the Defendant to benefit at the detriment of Plaintiff. 25. In addition to tipped work, Plaintiff was required by Defendant to perform non tipped work for which Plaintiff was paid at the reduced tip credit rate. Examples of such non tipped generating labor which the plaintiff performed include: a. Bar set up assignments: Stocking and icing milk and cream; Stocking coffee, tea, bottled drinks; Brewing coffee and tea; Stocking glasses, straws, napkins, coffee cups and saucers; Cutting lemons, limes, and bar fruit; Putting garnishes on ice such as lemons and limes; Cleaning, adjusting, and connecting beer kegs; Replacing empty CO2 tanks with back - up canisters; 8 PageID 58 Replacing syrup containers for soda machines; Cleaning soda dispenser nozzles; Washing dirty glassware behind bar; Polishing glassware; Setting up or putting away bar mats; Performing inventory checks or " facing " bottles. b. Table set up, break down, and cleaning projects: Cleaning and wiping the wait station; Cleaning and wiping table tops; Cleaning and wiping chairs and booths; Cleaning and wiping menus; Aligning and straightening chairs; Taking down or putting up chairs; Setting tables - silverware, plates, glassware, napkins, caddies; Stocking sugar, sweeteners; Refilling salt and pepper; Cleaning condiment holders; Stocking or filling ketchup or table sauces; Rolling silverware; Polishing silverware, organizing, or moving silverware to front of house. c. Maintenance and janitorial undertakings: Placing trash cans in designated areas; Checking restrooms for cleanliness and supplies; Wiping water from sinks in restrooms; Dusting lamps, shelves, or picture frames in dining room; Performing general cleaning; Stocking printer paper, when back - up rolls were needed; Checking entry and wait area floors, and cleaning if necessary; Checking floors and sweeping and mopping if necessary; Washing dishes. d. Undesignated skeleton crew duties to maintain restaurant performance to save the defendant on overhead and labor costs. 26. The non - tipped work for which Plaintiff was paid at a tip credited rate exceeded twenty percent (20 %) of each week worked by the Plaintiff. 27. In both policy and practice, the Defendant regularly and consistently required the 8 PageID 59 Plaintiff 1o perform non - tipped labor in excess of twenty percent (20 %) of Plaintiff's work weck before, during, and after scheduled shifts. As such, full minimum wage for such time is owed. 28. As a result of Defendant's willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendant has violated Fla. Stat. S 448. 110. 29. Defendant's conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Ac within the meaning of Fla. Stat. $ 448. 110. 30. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the Florida Minimum Wage Act by not paying Plaintiff a wage for time spent working. 31. Defendant individually and / or through an cnterprise or ageni, directed and exercised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 32. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an employce, not on the job (s) performed at the direction of the Defendant. 33. On February 15, 2017, Defendant was provided by certificd mail written notice identifying the applicable minimum wage sought, the estimated work dates for which payment is soughi, and the total amount of unpaid wages being sought by Plaintiff as required by Fla. Stat. 84 - 18. 110 (6) (a), satisfying the Florida Minimum Wage Act prc - suit notification requirement. 34. Due to Defendant's illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant, compensation for unpaid wages, an additional cqual amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action under Fla. Stat. $ 443. 08, $ 448. 104 and $ 448. 110. COUNT II: MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CONSITUTION INCIDENTAL NON - TIPPED LABOR 8 PageID 60 35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 36. At all relevant times, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Fla. Consi. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 37. Al all relevant times, Defendant cmployed Plaintiff within the meaning of Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 38. Plaintiff brings this action as a fonner hourly employec of thc Dcfendant who wilfully refused to pay a wage during Plaintiff's employment. For time spent during Plaintiff's employment, Defendant took a " tip credit " from Plaintiff's wages. Thus, Defendant paid Plaintiff at a rate less than the applicable minimum wage. 39. Pursuant to Fla. Const. An. X, $ 24 (c), a tip credit cxcmption from Florida's mi vimum wage requirements may only be taken when the Employer would otherwise be eligible lo do so under the FLSA, as incorporated through the FMWA. 40. Pursuant toU.S. Dept. of Labor, Field Operations Handbook Ch. 30000 (c) (2) through 30000 (c) (4) state " 29 CFR 531. 56 (c) permits the employer to take a tip credit for time spent in duties related 10 the tipped occupation of an employce, even though such duties are not by themselves directed toward producing tips, provided such related duties are incidental to the regular duties of the tipped employees and are generally assigned to the tipped employee. For exanple, duties related to the tipped occupation may include a server who does preparatory or closing activities, rolls silverware and fills salt and pepper shakers while the restaurant is open, cleins and sets tables, makes coffee, and occasionally washes dishes or glasses. (3) However, where the facts indicate that tipped employecs spend a substantial amount of time (i. c ., in excess of 20 percent of the hours worked in the tipped occupation in the workweck) performing such 8 PageID 61 related duties, no tip crcdit may be taken for the time spent in thosc duties, All related dutics co int toward the 20 percent tolerance. (4) Likewise, an employer may not take a tip credit for the time that a tipped employce spends on work that is not rclated to the tipped occupation. For ex imple, maintenance work (c. g ., cleaning bathrooms and washing windows) are not related to the tipped occupation of a server; such jobs are non - tipped occupations. In this case, the en ployee is effectively employed in dual jobs. " 41. The Defendant willfully and improperly applied a tip credit to every hour that the Plaintiff worked, even when Plaintiff was clearly engaged in non - tipped tasks exceeding twenty pe cent 20 %, and when Plaintiff was required 10 perform non - server duties. 42. Defendant improperly utilized the tip credit and unjustly benefitted by saving the tip credit amount for cach hour Plaintiff worked. With this great savings comes grcat responsibility. Plaintiff was not able to obtain tips or perform tip - generating work while being pa d at the reduced tip credit rate, causing the Defendant to benefit at the detriment of Plaintiff. 43. In addition to tipped work, Plaintiff was required by Defendant to perform non tipped work for which Plaintiff was paid at the reduced tip credit rate. Examples of such non tipped generating labor which the plaintiff performed include: a. Bar set up assignments: Stocking and icing milk and cream; Stocking coffcc, tca, bottled drinks; Brewing coffee and tca; Stocking glasses, straws, napkins, coffee cups and saucers; Curling lemons, limes, and bar fruit; Putting garnishes on icc such as lemons and limes; Cleaning, adjusting, and connecting beer kcgs; Replacing cmply CO2 tanks with back - up canisters; Replacing syrup containers for soda machines; Cleaning soda dispenser nozzles; Washing dirty glassware behind bar; Polishing glasswarc; Setting 8 PagelD 62 up or putting away bar mats; Performing inventory checks or " facing bottles. b. Table set up, break down, and cleaning projects: Cleaning and wiping the wait station; Cleaning and wiping table tops; Cleaning and wiping chairs and booths; Cleaning and wiping menus; Aligning and straightening chairs; Taking down or putting up chairs; Setting tables - silverware, plates, glassware, napkins, caddies; Stocking sugar, sweeteners; Refilling salt and pepper; Cleaning condiment holders; Stocking or filling ketchup or table sauces; Rolling silverware; Polishing silverware, organizing, or moving silverware to front of house. c. Maintenance and janitorial undertakings: Placing trash cans in designated areas; Checking restrooms for cleanliness and supplies; Wiping water from sinks in restrooms; Dusting lamps, shelves, or picture frames in dining room; Performing general cleaning; Stocking printer paper, when back - up rolls were needed; Checking entry and wait area floors, and cleaning if necessary; Checking floors and sweeping and mopping if necessary; Washing dishes. d. Undesignated skeleton crew duties to maintain restaurant performance to save the defendant on overhead and labor costs. 44. The non - tipped work for which Plaintiff was paid at a tip credited rate exceeded twenty percent (20 %) of each week worked by the Plaintiff. 45. In both policy and practice, the Defendant regularly and consistently required the Plaintiff to perform non - tipped labor in excess of twenty percent (20 %) of Plaintiff's work week before, during, and after scheduled shifts. As such, full minimum wage for such time is owed. 8 PageID 63 46. As a result of Defendant's willful failure to compensate the plaintiff the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendant has violated Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 47. Defendant's conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act within the meaning of Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 48. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the Florida Minimum Wage Act by not paying Plaintiff a wage for time spent working. 49. Defendant individually and / or through an enterprise or agent, directed and exercised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 50. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an employee, not on the job (s) performed at the direction of the Defendant. 51. On February 15, 2017, Defendant was provided by certified mail written notice identifying the applicable minimum wage sought the estimated work dates for which payment is sought, and the total amount of unpaid wages being sought by Plaintiff as required by Fla. Const. At. X, $ 24 (c), satisfying the Florida Minimum Wage Act pre - suit notification requirement. 52. Due to Defendant's illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant, compensation for unpaid wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action under Fla. Stat. S 448. 08. COUNT III: FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT - DUAL OCCUPATION 53. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 54. Defendant required that plaintiff perform certain dishwasher duties including but 8 PageID 64 not limited to, stocking supplies such as glasses, straws, napkins, coffee cups and saucers; polishing glassware and silverware; organizing or moving silverware to the front of the house; and washing dishes and glasses behind bar. These duties were not related to tipped duties. These tasks were performed while plaintiff was paid the Florida minimum wage for Tipped Employees, rather than the proper Florida minimum wage. 55. Defendant required that plaintiff perform certain janitorial duties including but not limited to, cleaning and wiping tables, chairs and booths; aligning, straightening, taking down, or putting up chairs; placing trash cans in designated areas and sweeping and mopping the floors; checking restrooms for cleanliness and supplies, and clcaning restrooms, condiment holders, lamps, shelves, entryway, waiting area and other general cleaning. These duties were not related to tipped duties. These tasks were performed while Plaintiff was paid the Florida minimum wage for Tipped Employees, rather than the proper Florida minimum wage. 56. Defendant required that plaintiff perform certain maintenance duties including but not limited to, performing extensive setup for banquets, special events, or large parties. These duties were not related to tipped duties. These tasks were performed while plaintiff was paid the Florida minimum wage for Tipped Employees, rather than the proper Florida minimum wage. 57. Defendant required that Plaintiff perform certain hostess duties including but not linnited to, Seating customers at other server stations or performing host duties. These duties were not related to tipped duties. These tasks were performed while plaintiff was paid the Florida minimum wage for Tipped Employees, rather than the proper Florida minimum wage. 58. Defendant required that Plaintiff perform certain server assistant duties including but not limited to, cutting lemons, limes, and bar fruit; assist other stations with their work; 8 PageID 65 running food for other servers, selling retail items – t - shirts, glassware, membership cards, etc. These duties were not related to tipped duties. These tasks were performed while plaintiff was paid the Florida minimum wage for Tipped Employees, rather than the proper Florida minimum wage. 59. These dual occupational tasks were not occasional ', but were often in occurrence. These dual occupational tasks were regularly not related to tip related duties. 60. The " dual occupational " tasks listed in paragraphs supra are not customarily and / or traditionally incidental, and are otherwise unrelated to, the job of a server or other tipped profession. 61. Section 448. 110 (3) of the Florida Minimum Wage Act incorporate the FISA provisions regarding the regulation of minimum wage exemptions with regard to an employer " tip credit " . 62. Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) allows an Employer to apply a tip credit to the State mandated minimum wage " for tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA " . 3. Defendant's conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act. 64. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the Florida Minimum Wage Act by not paying Plaintiff a wage equal to or greater than minimum wage for time spent performing " dual occupational " tasks. 65. Defendant individually and / or through an enterprise or agent, directed and exercised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 66. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an employee, 8 PageID 66 not on the job (s) performed at the direction of the Defendant. 67. On February 15, 2017, Defendant was provided by certified mail written notice identifying the applicable minimum wage sought, the estimated work dates for which payment is sought, and the total amount of unpaid wages being sought by Plaintiff as required by Fla. Stat. $ 448. 110 () (a), satisfying the Florida Minimum Wage Act pre - suit notification requirement. 68. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the difference between wages paid and Florida's minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional amount as liquidated damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. COUNT IV: FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT - UNPAID WAGES 69. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 70. At all relevant times, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Florida Minimum Wage Aci, Fla. Stat. $ 448. 110 and the Florida Constitution. 71. At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff within the meaning of the Florida Minimum Wage Act. 72. Plaintiff brings this action as a former Hourly Employee of the Defendant who willfully refused to pay a wage during Plaintiff's employment. 73. Defendant engaged in the regular practice of off the clock work. 74. As a result of Defendant willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendant has violated Fla. Stat. $ 448. 110 and Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 75. Defendant's conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Florida Minimum Wage 8 PageID 67 Act within the meaning of Fla. Stat. $ 448. 110 and Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24 (c) . 76. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the Florida Minimum Wage Act by not paying Plaintiff a wage for time spent working. 77. Defendant individually and / or through an enterprise or agent, directed and exercised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 78. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an employee, no on the job (s) performed at the direction of the Defendant. 79. On February 15, 2017, Defendant was provided by certified mail written notice identifying the applicable minimum wage sought, the estimated work dates for which payment is sought, and the total amount of unpaid wages being sought. 80. Due to Defendant's illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant, compensation for unpaid wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action under Fla. Stat. $ 448. 08, 8 448. 104 and 8 448. 110. COUNT V: FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME 81. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 82. At all relevant times, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") . 83. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA. 84. During the time of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff regularly and consistently worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek. 8 PageID 68 85. The FLSA requires employers to compensate employees who work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek at a rate no less than 150 % of their regular rate of pay. 86. As a result of Defendant willful failure to compensate the plaintiff the applicable overtime wage for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week, Defendant has violated FLSA, 29U.S. C. $ 207. 87. Defendant has and continues to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying Plaintiff the proper overtime wage for time spent working due to intentional manipulation of Plaintiff's time records. 88. Defendant individually and / or through an enterprise or agent, directed and exercised control over Plaintiff's work and wages at all relevant times. 89. Plaintiff's wages were dependent on how Plaintiff was classified as an employee, not on the job (s) performed at the direction of the Defendant. 90. Due to Defendant's violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation for unpaid overtime wages; an additional equal amount as liquidated damages; and reasonable attorneys ' fees, costs and disbursements of this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief: a. Declaring that Defendant has violated the minimum wage provisions of the FMWA; b. Declaring that Defendant has violated the minimum wage provisions of Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24; c. Declaring that Defendant has willfully violated the overtime provisions of the 8 PageID 69 FLSA d. Declaring that Defendants ' violation of the FMWA and Fla. Const. Art. X, S 24 were willful; e. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages as a result of Defendants ' violation of the FMWA and Fla. Const. Art. X, S 24; f. Awarding the Plaintiff damages for all unpaid wages; g. Awarding the Plaintiff pre - judgment and post - judgment interest under the FMWA and Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24; h. Award Plaintiff all monies contributed to the improper tip - pool or all tip credit monies withheld for any shift where Plaintiff contributed to an improper tip pool, whichever is greater. i. Awarding the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys ' fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to the FMWA and Fla. Const. Art. X, $ 24; j. Where Defendant, an employer, does not have records and fails to keep complete and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer. k. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 8 Pageld 70 JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated February 24, 2017 / / Kevin E Vorhis Kevin E Vorhis, Esq ., Fla. Bar No. 0118482 Cohen Grossman, Attorneys At Law 350 N. Lake Destiny Road Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: 407 - 478 - 4878 Facsimile: 407 - 478 - 0204 Primary: kvorhis @ itsaboutjustice LAW Secondary: tiina @ itsaboutjustice. LAW Counsel for Plaintiff