IN THE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
LINDA ADAMS, DEBBIE JACOBS, MARY C. BEASLEY,
ROBIN FRALEY, GINA BAILEY, BETTY W. HART,
FOREST SHEWSBURON, on their own behalf and for all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.: 3:05CV310
SCHOOL BOARD OF HANOVER COUNTY,
DR. STEWART D. ROBERSON, in his official capacity as a member of the School
Board AND Superintendent of Schools, for the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
DAVID L SLONAKER, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board
for the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
GLENN T. MILLICAN, JR., in his official capacity as a member of the School
Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
SUE F. WATSON, in her official capacity as a member of the School Board for
the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
JOHN F. AXSELLE, III, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board
for the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
ROBERT L. WOOD, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for
the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
ANN F. H. GLADSTONE, in her official capacity as a member of the School
Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia
1
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
ROBERT L. HUDLEY, JR., in his official capacity as a member of the School
Board for the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
EARL J. HUNTER, in his official capacity as a member of the School Board for
the County of Hanover, Virginia
Serve: 200 Berkley Street
Ashland, VA 23005
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves and a class of others
similarly situated to require Defendants to pay back wages owed to
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, which Defendants failed to pay in violation
of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201,
et seq. ("the Act"). Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief and damages
for themselves and all class members.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq.; 29 U.S.C. § 216, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).\
2
3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii) because the defendant
transacts business in this district, and plaintiffs were employed by the
defendant in this district, and most of the actions complained of were
conducted within this district.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiffs Linda Adams, Debbie Jacobs, Mary C. Beasley, Robin Fraley, Gina
Bailey, Betty W. Hart, and Forest Shrewsbury (hereinafter “Bus Drivers”)
are current hourly non-exempt employee of Hanover County School Board
who earned, but did not receive, compensation for time worked, together
with time and one-half pay for time spent over 40 hours per week from
Defendants.
5. The class of similarly situated bus drivers are or were hourly non-exempt
employees of Hanover County School Board who earned, but did not receive
compensation for time worked, time and one-half pay for time spent over
40 hours per week from Defendants.
6. The plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the class at all times relevant hereto were
each an “employee” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (e).
7. The defendant was at all times relevant hereto was an “employer” as that
term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (d).1
(d) “Employer” includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an
employer in relation to an employee and includes a public agency….
1
3
8. Defendant is Hanover County School Board, (“Hanover”). The employees of
Hanover regularly handle and work on goods such as office supplies, buses,
etc. which have moved in interstate commerce.
9. Defendants Dr. Stewart D. Roberson, David L. Slonaker, Glen T. Millican,
Jr., Sue F. Watson, John F. Azselle, III, Robert L. Wood, Ann F. H.
Gladstone, Robert L. Hudley, Jr., and Earl J. Hunter are members of the
school board for the County of Hanover and are sued in their official
capacity as the employer of the plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the members of
the class.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
10. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff Bus Drivers brings this action on
behalf of themselves and an opt-in class of all persons who were, are or will
be hourly non-exempt bus drivers of Hanover who earned, but did not
receive compensation for time worked, including but not limited to
overtime pay from Defendant, and only recently became aware of their
right to such compensation and overtime pay.
a) The size of the class is so numerous (over 100 persons) that joinder of
the individual members would be impracticable.
b) The named Plaintiffs are an adequate class representative because
they are directly impacted by Defendants’ actions. The interests of
the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the
4
interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class
are experienced in representing clients in federal litigation.
c) Common questions of law and fact are involved, including questions
posed by Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants failed to pay in
violation of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended,
29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ("the Act") present and former hourly nonexempt employees of Hanover County, who earned, but did not
receive, overtime pay from Defendant.
d) Claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class
because all class members and the named Plaintiffs are affected by
Defendants’ conduct.
e) Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class,
thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief
with respect to the class as a whole.
f) Common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.
g) The named Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the class members in
terms of job responsibilities, title, and employment dates as they are
all bus drivers who provided services to the students of Hanover
County including but not limited to developmentally and learning
disabled children for the purpose of supplying such services to the
5
public and who were denied compensation for all the time that they
worked and on occasion, time and one-half overtime wages by
Defendants.
FACTS
11. Hanover County School Board hired the Bus Drivers and class members.
12. Bus Drivers and class members provide transportation services, including but
not limited to, driving school buses, maintaining a clean and safe
environment, reporting behavioral issues, issuing conduct notices, cleaning
the buses, refueling the buses, transporting the buses for repairs and
maintenance, storing the buses, supplying such services to the public.
13. Hanover County School Board paid Bus Drivers and class members an hourly
wage, but failed to pay for all time worked, including for actual time
driving, for time driving the empty bus, for time fueling, cleaning and
inspecting the bus, for time required to have buses repaired and similar
time spent associated with the duties of driving a bus.
14. Hanover County School Board failed to maintain time records2.
2
§ 211(c) Records
Every employer subject to any provision of this chapter or of any order issued under
this chapter shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed
by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment
maintained by him, and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and
shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as he shall prescribe by
regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions
of this chapter or the regulations or orders thereunder. The employer of an employee
who performs substitute work described in section 207 (p)(3) of this title may not be
required under this subsection to keep a record of the hours of the substitute work.
6
PAYMENT FOR ALL TIME WORKING
15. The Bus Drivers and class members are not paid for all the time that they
work. Instead, Hanover County School Board pays the Bus Drivers and class
members an arbitrary pay without regard to the time actually expended by
the Bus Drivers and class members working.
16. The defendants improperly failed to compensate the plaintiff Bus Drivers
and class members for all time they were at work discharging their workrelated duties.
17. For extra bus runs, the Bus Drivers and class members are paid at reduced
rates.
OVERTIME COMPENSATION
18. From time to time, Bus Drivers and class members are required to worked
over forty hours per week.
19. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires an employer to pay its employees at a
rate of at least one and one-half their regular rate for time worked in one
work week over forty hours. This is commonly known as the time-and-a-half
pay for overtime work.
20. Despite working overtime, the Bus Drivers and class members were not paid
time and one-half pay from Defendants for overtime worked.
7
WILLFUL VIOLATIONS
21. On information and belief, Defendants have for more than three years,
willingly, deliberately and intentionally refused to pay Bus Drivers and class
members for time actually worked, and for time and one-half pay for
overtime worked.
22. On information and belief, and in violation of the FLSA, Defendants did not,
during all relevant times, until recently, post the FLSA laws in an area
alerting Bus Drivers and class members of their rights to payment for time
worked and to overtime pay under the FLSA.
23. Consequently, Bus Drivers and class members were until very recently,
never aware that the FLSA provided for compensation for time actually
worked rather than an arbitrary determination and for time and one-half
pay for overtime worked or that they were owed compensation for actual
time worked and time and one-half pay for overtime worked as a bus
drivers.
24. Defendants led Bus Drivers and class members to believe that their regular
pay was paid in conformity with the FLSA and the laws of the State of
Virginia.
25. In fact, not until one of the Bus Drivers contacted the Department of
Education did the Bus Drivers and class members find that they were owed
back wages or learn that Defendants failed to pay in accordance with FLSA
and did fail to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.
8
26. Defendants knew or should have known that Bus Drivers and class members
were entitled to compensation for time actually worked and for time and
one-half overtime pay under the FLSA, during all relevant times.
27. As proof of this fact, upon information and belief Defendants had previously
received publications and advice to pay Bus Drivers and class members the
wages actually earned and to pay time and one-half overtime pay, but
failed to do so.
28. As further proof of this fact, when the failure to comply was brought to the
attention of the director, the only response was “HR knew what they were
doing” or words of similar import.
29. As further proof of this fact, in newsletters from the VAPT, schools were
notified that wage claims were arising due to violations of FLSA under
circumstances similar to the present.
30. When drivers questioned the director about not being paid for hours in
excess of 4 hours per day, the director responded, “this is just how we do
it.”
31. As further proof of this fact, Defendants instituted a new time record on
April 1, 2005, which requires the employees Bus Drivers and class members
to certify that the document reports true and correct hours worked, but has
concurrently provided the Bus Drivers and class members with instructions
regarding the completion of the time sheet which will result in erroneous
report of that time, including but not limited to ending the calculation of
time as soon as the last child is let off the bus, starting the time when the
9
bus leaves the lot, if garaged on School property rather than when
inspection of the bus begins, not including time required to park the bus,
not including time spent traveling to refuel the bus (only including actual
pump time) time, no time included for driving the bus for repairs, no time
for inspecting the bus after the bus run to close windows and insure that no
child is left on the bus sleeping.
32. Defendants, however, willfully, deliberately and intentionally failed to pay
Bus Drivers and class members for time actually worked and for time and
one-half overtime wages to Bus Drivers and class members who worked over
forty hours per week.
33. Defendants have never claimed that the FLSA laws do not apply to the Bus
Drivers and class members or that the Bus Drivers and class members are
exemption from these requirements.
34. The Bus Drivers and the other similarly situated bus drivers are, therefore,
owed compensation for time actually worked but not paid, and time and
one-half overtime wages and back wages by Defendants, who willingly and
knowingly withheld those wages.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fair Labor Standards Act)
35. The foregoing paragraphs are included herein as though fully set forth
herein.
36. Defendants regularly engage in commerce and their employees handle and
use goods, which have moved in interstate commerce.
10
37. At all relevant times, Defendants were and are employers within the
meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
201, et seq. and are subject to the provisions of such Act.
38. Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the Plaintiff Class at all relevant times were
employees of Defendants, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
39. During the period of time that Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the Plaintiff Class
were employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and Plaintiff Class
performed work for which they were not compensated and in addition on
occasion overtime work for which no additional compensation was paid to
them by Defendants in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. More specifically,
Defendants violated § 7 of the FLSA by failing to pay time and one-half
overtime wages to hourly non-exempt employees who constitute the
Plaintiff Class and earned overtime pay.
40. Upon information and belief, the defendant’s pay system was unilaterally
imposed upon plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members.
41. The defendants’ failure to compensate the plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the
class members for all compensable hours violates the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA and the regulations thereunder.
42. The defendants’ failure to properly administer a scheme of compensation,
including but not limited to actual time, overtime and/or comp time
11
compensation violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the
regulations thereunder.
43. The defendants’ failure to compensate the plaintiff for all compensable
hours was a willful and knowing violation of the FLSA.
44. As a result of defendant’s willful and knowing failure to properly
compensate the plaintiff Bus Drivers and class members, the plaintiff Bus
Drivers and class members have suffered substantial delays in receipt of
wages owed and damages.
45. The Defendants’ failure to properly administer a compensation scheme for
overtime was a willful and knowing violation of the FLSA.
46. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216, Defendants owe Plaintiff Bus Drivers and
the Plaintiff Class compensation for the overtime work, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, together with an additional sum for
attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT 2
29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)(1994).
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FLSA
47. The foregoing paragraphs are included herein as though fully set forth
herein.
12
48. Some of the Plaintiff Bus Drivers who have completed their time records
with actual time have been subjected to harassment, increased scrutiny and
meetings for which they have not received compensation.
49. The Bus Drivers that have complained have been advised that the defendant
only has a problem with a few drivers.
50. There is a causal link between the adverse employment actions as
described above and the assertion by plaintiff Bus Drivers of both their
rights and the unfulfilled duties of defendants under the FLSA.
51. Other Bus Drivers and the class members fear retaliation for either
reporting their time accurately or for opposing the violations of FLSA by
defendants.
52. The actions of the defendants are in violation of the anti-retaliation
provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)(1994).
53. § 704(a) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for an employer to
retaliate against any employee who has opposed any unlawful employment
practice.
54. Certain of the plaintiff Bus Drivers opposed the unlawful employment
practices of defendant and were consequently retaliated against.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the putative class seek judgment against
Defendants as follows:
13
1. That the Court certify the instant suit as an opt-in class action under 29
U.S.C. § 216(b);
2. That the Court declare the rights and duties of the parties consistent
with the relief sought by Plaintiffs;
3. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s acts, policies, practices
and procedures complained of herein violated provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act;
4. That Defendants be enjoined from further violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
5. That the named Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and class members recover
compensatory, damages and an equal amount of liquidated damages as
provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
6. That Plaintiff and the class recover an award of reasonable attorneys
fees, costs, and expenses;
7. Order the Defendants to make whole the Plaintiffs Bus Drivers and the
class members by providing appropriate back pay and other benefits
wrongly denied in an amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative
relief;
8. Plaintiffs further pray for such additional relief as the interests of justice
may require.
14
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all triable issues.
Linda Adams, Debbie Jacobs, Mary C. Beasley,
Robin Fraley, Gina Bailey, Betty W. Hart,
Forest Shrewsbury, and others similarly situated
By:
Counsel
______________________________________
Thomas H. Roberts, #20614
Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.
105 S. First Street
Richmond, VA 23219
T (804) 783-2000
F (804) 783-2105
15