Mercer v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. et al, No. 2:2023cv00958 - Document 24 (D. Nev. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 23 Stipulation for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ABG)

Download PDF

Mercer v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar. No. 12225 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 325 W Liberty St Reno, Nevada 89501 Tel. (775) 502-8332 Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 mark@thiermanbuck.com Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 josh@thiermanbuck.com Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 leah@thiermanbuck.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, Nevada 89511 Tel. (775) 284-1500 Fax. (775) 703-5027 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 Doc. 24 LEANN MERCER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 v. 19 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No. 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Defendants. Plaintiff, LEANN MERCER (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Caesars”) and PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC (“Defendants”) (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs may file with the Court, without further motion, the First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proposed First Amended 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 17 EXHIBIT A First Amended Complaint EXHIBIT A Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar. No. 12225 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 325 West Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Tel. (775) 502-8332 Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 mark@thiermanbuck.com Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 josh@thiermanbuck.com Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 leah@thiermanbuck.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Tel. (775) 284-1500 Fax. (775) 703-5027 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 17 18 LEANN MERCER; JOCELYN LEWIS; and MIKE BRADY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207, et al.; 2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and § NRS 608.250; 3) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of NRS 608.016 and 608.140; 4) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS § 608.018 and NRS § 608.140; and 5) Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing in Violation of NRS 608.020-.050 and NRS 608.140. ARBITRATION EXEMPTION CLAIMED: CLASS ACTION LIEN REQUESTED PURSUANT TO NRS 608.050 -1FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 3 of 17 1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 2 3 COME NOW Plaintiffs LEANN MERCER, JOCELYN LEWIS, and MIKE BRADY 4 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and 5 allege the following: 6 All allegations in the Complaint are based upon information and belief except for 7 those allegations that pertain to the Plaintiffs named herein and their counsel. Each 8 allegation in the Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary 9 support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10 11 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged herein 12 because the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000 and a party seeking to recover 13 unpaid wages has a private right of action pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 14 Chapter 608. See Neville v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for County of Clark, 406 P.3d 15 499, 502 (Nev. 2017). Plaintiffs made a proper demand for wages due pursuant to NRS 16 608.140 on May 4, 2023. Plaintiffs also claim a private cause of action to foreclose a lien 17 against the property owner for wages due pursuant to NRS 608.050. 18 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims alleged herein pursuant 19 to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) which states: “An action to 20 recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences may be maintained against any 21 employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction 22 by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other 23 employees similarly situated.” 24 3. Venue is proper in this Court because one or more of the Defendants named 25 herein maintains a principal place of business or otherwise is found in this judicial district 26 and many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Clark County, Nevada, which is 27 located within this district. 28 PARTIES -2FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 4 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 7 4. Plaintiff LEANN MERCER is a natural person who is and has been a resident of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 5. Plaintiff JOCELYN LEWIS is a natural person who is and has been a resident of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 6. Plaintiff MIKE BRADY is a natural person who is and has been a resident of Clark County, Nevada during the relevant time period alleged herein. 7. Defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Caesars”) is a foreign 8 corporation headquartered in Nevada and is the largest casino operator in the United 9 States. Caesars’ Agent of Service, Corporation Service Company, is located at 112 N. 10 11 Curry Street, Carson City, NV, 89703, USA. 8. Defendant PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC (“Paris”) is a 12 Domestic Limited-Liability Company registered with the Nevada Secretary of State. 13 Paris’ Agent of Service, Corporation Service Company, is located at 112 N. Curry Street, 14 Carson City, NV, 89703, USA. 15 9. Caesars and Paris are each referred to herein as a “Defendant” or 16 “Defendants.” The Defendants named herein are the employers of Plaintiffs and all 17 collective and class action members alleged herein. Defendants are employers engaged 18 in commerce under the provisions of NRS 608.011. 19 10. The identity of DOES 1-50 is unknown at this time and the Complaint will 20 be amended at such time when the identities are known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are 21 informed and believe that each Defendant sued herein as DOE is responsible in some 22 manner for the acts, omissions, or representations alleged herein and any reference to 23 “Defendant” or “Defendants” herein shall mean “Defendants and each of them.” 24 25 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. Caesars owns and operates the World Series of Poker (“WSOP”). The 26 WSOP is a series of poker tournaments held annually in Paradise, Nevada. Every year, 27 Caesars operates WSOP tournaments and live cash games at casino hotels that are 28 owned and operated by Caesars, including the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino, the Paris -3FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 5 of 17 1 Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, and (starting in 2023) the Horseshoe Las Vegas Hotel and 2 Casino. Caesars employs poker dealers to work at their WSOP tournaments and live 3 cash games every year. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 4 12. Plaintiff Mercer has worked as a seasonal WSOP dealer for Caesars every 5 year since 2017, except 2020 (due to the COVID 19 pandemic). Plaintiffs Lewis and 6 Brady have likewise worked as seasonal WSOP dealers for Caesars during the relevant 7 period. While Caesars initially classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors prior to 8 2020, beginning in 2021 and continuing through the present, Defendants have hired 9 Plaintiffs each year to work as hourly paid non-exempt employee dealers for WSOP 10 tournaments and live cash games for the duration of the WSOP season. Each year, 11 Defendants have terminated Plaintiff's’ employment at the conclusion of the WSOP 12 season. 13 Defendants’ Failure to Pay For Time Worked Attending Required Training 14 Sessions 15 13. Defendants required Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated WSOP 16 dealers to attend training sessions around the beginning of each WSOP season. Training 17 focused on subjects such as Defendants’ active shooter protocols, anti-money 18 laundering rules, sexual harassment policies, safety policies, cardroom rules and 19 policies, and other practices and policies concerning Defendants’ business and 20 employment of Plaintiffs and other WSOP dealers. 21 14. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated WSOP 22 dealers for all of their time worked attending these training sessions. For example, 23 Plaintiff Mercer estimates that she spent approximately seven-and-a-half (7.5) hours 24 attending training sessions at the beginning of the 2022 WSOP season. However, 25 Defendants only paid Plaintiff Mercer for three (3) hours of work for her time spent 26 attending training sessions. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff Mercer for the additional 27 four-and-a-half (4.5) hours spent attending training sessions. 28 -4FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 6 of 17 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 1 15. Plaintiffs’ experience as described above is not unique. Other WSOP 2 dealers have informed Plaintiffs that they have similarly only been paid for (3) hours of 3 training time, even though such employees similarly spent significantly more than three 4 hours of time attending the required training sessions. Based on information and belief, 5 Defendants systemically failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated WSOP 6 dealers for their time worked attending required training sessions. 7 Defendants’ Failure to Include Non-Discretionary Payments in Overtime 8 Calculations 9 16. Defendants paid Plaintiffs an hourly base rate of $12.50 per hour. In 10 addition, when Plaintiffs were dealing certain games, Defendants paid Plaintiffs an 11 additional guaranteed amount of $15.00 to $20.00 per “down,” which Defendants 12 referred to as a “Guaranteed Down Rate.” A “down” refers to a set amount of time 13 (commonly half an hour) that a poker dealer spends dealing cards at a given table. 14 Including the Guaranteed Down Rate, WSOP poker dealers could earn a regular hourly 15 rate of over $50 an hour. 16 17. Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and 17 forty (40) hours in a workweek. 18 compensated overtime at one and one-half (1 ½) times their base hourly rate of pay 19 without including the additional non-discretionary compensation paid in the form of the 20 Guaranteed Down Rate wages. 21 18. When Plaintiffs worked overtime, they were For example, attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an 22 itemized pay statement that Defendants provided to Plaintiff Mercer, which represents 23 employee wages for the pay period of June 10, 2022, through June 23, 2022. During 24 this two-week pay period, Plaintiff Mercer worked 106.5 hours. Based on information 25 and belief, Plaintiff Mercer worked more than eight (8) hours in a workday and forty (40) 26 hours in a workweek in each of the two workweeks falling within this pay period. 27 Defendants compensated Plaintiff Mercer for 80 hours of regular time at her base rate of 28 $12.50 per hour, for a total of $1000.00. Defendants further compensated Plaintiff -5FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 7 of 17 1 Mercer an additional $1,750.00 in three separate line items labeled “Tokes,” which 2 included the Guaranteed Down Rate due for time worked dealing specified tables during 3 that pay period. However, Defendants only compensated Plaintiff Mercer for her 26.5 4 hours of overtime at an overtime rate of $18.75 (1 ½ times her base hourly rate of 5 $12.50), for a total of $496.88. 6 Guaranteed Down Rate compensation in the regular rate for the purpose of calculating 7 overtime and did not pay Plaintiff Mercer any overtime premium on the Guaranteed Down 8 Rate wages. Plaintiff Mercer is therefore owed $217.72 in unpaid overtime for this pay 9 period. 10 19. Defendants did not include the nondiscretionary Plaintiffs’ experience as described above is not unique. Defendants 11 maintain an unlawful payment practice of paying Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated 12 employees the base hourly rate of pay for overtime without including other forms of non- 13 discretionary compensation such as the Guaranteed Down Rate. 14 calculation error is systematic and applies to all non-exempt employees who worked 15 overtime within the relevant period and who were paid non-discretionary compensation 16 in the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate beyond their base hourly pay. Defendants are 17 legally required to maintain all pay documentation that will demonstrate the amount of 18 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and all members of the putative collective action and 19 classes. 20 21 22 23 Defendants’ COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 24 situated employees as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 25 and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 27 22. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following FLSA Collective of similarly situated individuals: 28 -6FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 8 of 17 1 FLSA Collective: All persons who worked over 40 hours in a workweek and who were paid a base hourly rate of pay plus nondiscretionary compensation in the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate and who were employed by Defendants in the United States at any time during the relevant time period. 2 3 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 4 23. With regard to the conditional certification mechanism under the FLSA, 5 Plaintiffs are similarly situated to those they seek to represent for the following reasons, 6 among others: 7 A. Defendants employed Plaintiffs and all other FLSA Collective Members 8 as hourly-paid employees who did not receive their overtime premium 9 pay at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek. 10 B. Plaintiffs’ situation is similar to those they seek to represent because 11 Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other FLSA Collective 12 Members their full overtime wages owed. 13 C. Common questions exist as to whether Plaintiffs and all other members 14 of the FLSA Collective worked overtime hours but yet were not 15 compensated their correct overtime rate of pay. 16 D. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ, and have employed, 17 in excess of 1,000 FLSA Collective Members within the applicable 18 statute of limitations period. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 E. Plaintiffs have signed and filed a Consent to Sue form in this action. 24. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following Nevada Classes of similarly situated individuals employed by Defendants: A. Regular Rate Class: All persons who worked over 40 hours in a workweek and who were paid a base hourly rate of pay plus nondiscretionary compensation in the form of a Guaranteed Down Rate and who were employed by Defendants in the state of Nevada at any time during the relevant time period. B. Training Class: All current and former persons employed by Defendants as WSOP dealers during the relevant time period in the State of Nevada who attended Defendants’ required training sessions without receiving compensation for all hours worked attending such training. 28 -7FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 9 of 17 1 C. Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class: All members of the Regular Rate Class and/or the Training Class who are former employees. 2 3 4 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 5 25. Class treatment is appropriate under Rule 23’s class certification mechanism because: A. The Classes are Sufficiently Numerous: Upon information and 6 belief, Defendants employ and have employed in excess of 1,000 Class Members 7 in each class within the applicable time period. Because Defendants are legally 8 obligated to keep accurate payroll records, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ 9 records will establish the members of these Classes as well as their numerosity. 10 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims are Typical to Those of Fellow Class Members: 11 Each Class Member is and was subject to the same practices, plans, or policies 12 as Plaintiffs. 13 C. Common Questions of Law and Fact Exist: Common questions of 14 law and fact exist and predominate as to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, 15 including, without limitation: (1) Whether Defendants paid Overtime wages at the 16 correct legal rate; and (2) Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Wages Due and 17 Owing Sub-Class Class are entitled to continuation wages for the failure to pay 18 them pursuant to Nevada law. 19 D. Plaintiffs are Adequate Representatives of the Classes: Plaintiffs 20 will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Classes because Plaintiffs 21 are a member of all the Classes, they have issues of law and fact in common with 22 all members of the Classes, and their interests are not antagonistic to Class 23 members. Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities 24 to Class Members and are determined to discharge those duties diligently by 25 vigorously seeking the maximum possible recovery for Class Members. 26 27 E. Predominance/Superior Mechanism: Class claims predominate and a class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 28 -8FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 10 of 17 1 adjudication of this controversy. Each Class Member has been damaged and is 2 entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policy and/or practice of 3 failing to compensate its employees in accordance with Nevada wage and hour 4 law. The prosecution of individual remedies by each Class Member will tend to 5 establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendants and result in the 6 impairment of Class Members’ rights and the disposition of their interest through 7 actions to which they were not parties. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 9 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 10 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Against Defendants) 11 26. 12 13 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) provides as follows: “Except as otherwise provided 14 in the section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is 15 engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an 16 enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a 17 workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his 18 employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one- 19 half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Emphasis added. 20 28. “Regular rate” is defined to include “all remuneration for employment paid 21 to, or on behalf of, the employee[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.211 22 (“Bonuses which are announced to employees to induce them to work more steadily or 23 more rapidly or more efficiently or to remain with the firm are regarded as part of the 24 regular rate of pay.) “The regular rate by its very nature must reflect all payments which 25 the parties have agreed shall be received regularly during the workweek, exclusive of 26 overtime payments. It is not an arbitrary label chosen by the parties; it is an actual fact.’” 27 Newman v. Advanced Tech. Innovation Corp., 749 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 Walling v. Youngerman–Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 -9FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 11 of 17 1 L.Ed. 1705 (1945)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.211 (“For example, any bonus which is 2 promised to employees upon hiring or which is the result of collective bargaining would 3 not be excluded from the regular rate under this provision of the Act.”). 4 Based on the allegations set forth above, Defendants failed to include non- 5 discretionary compensation in the form of Guaranteed Down Rate wages in the regular 6 rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime premiums due to Plaintiffs and all 7 members of the FLSA Collective. 8 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 29. 30. The statute of limitations under the FLSA is 3 years for willful violations. 9 Defendants’ policy of failing to pay overtime on nondiscretionary wages for time worked 10 is a willful and reckless violation of federal wage and overtime requirements. Defendants 11 have sought to avoid their wage-hour obligations by refusing to properly compensate 12 employees for overtime even though there is no reasonable basis to exclude the 13 nondiscretionary Guaranteed Down Rate wages from the regular rate of pay for purposes 14 of calculating overtime compensation. Accordingly, Defendant’s conduct in this regard 15 has been willful. 16 31. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and all FLSA Collective 17 Members that Defendants pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Members their full overtime 18 wages at the applicable legal rate of pay during the relevant time period together with 19 liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, as provided by law. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and 22 NRS § 608.250 23 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Training Class Against Defendants) 24 25 26 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 33. Article 15 Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution sets forth the minimum 27 wage requirements in the State of Nevada and further provides that “[t]he provisions of 28 this section may not be waived by agreement between an individual employee and an - 10 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 12 of 17 1 employer. ... An employee claiming violation of this section may bring an action against 2 his or her employer in the courts of this State to enforce the provisions of this section 3 and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to 4 remedy any violation of this section, including but not limited to back pay, damages, 5 reinstatement or injunctive relief. An employee who prevails in any action to enforce this 6 section shall be awarded his or her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 7 34. NRS 608.016 states, “An employer shall pay to the employee wages for 8 each hour the employee works. An employer shall not require an employee to work 9 without wages during a trial or break-in period.” 10 35. Nevada law does not permit the averaging of minimum wages over the 11 course of the workweek. See In re: Amazon.com v. Busk, 905 F.3d 387, 406-07(6th Cir. 12 2018). Each hour worked must be compensated at least at the requisite minimum wage 13 rate. 14 36. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs and all other members of the Training 15 Class for all time spent attending required training sessions, Defendants failed to pay 16 Plaintiffs and members of the Training Class at least the Constitutionally required 17 minimum wage for all the compensable hours they worked. 18 37. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and for all Training Class 19 Members payment by Defendants at the minimum wage rate of pay or their regular hourly 20 rate, whichever is higher, including all overtime premiums if applicable, for all hours 21 worked during the relevant time period alleged herein together with attorneys’ fees, 22 costs, and interest, and all other damages, as provided by law. 23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 24 Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of NRS § 608.016 and 25 NRS § 608.140 26 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Training Class Against Defendants) 27 28 38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. - 11 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 13 of 17 1 2 3 NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action for unpaid wages. 40. NRS 608.016, entitled, “Payment for each hour of work; trial or break-in 4 period not excepted,” states that: “An employer shall pay to the employee wages for each 5 hour the employee works. An employer shall not require an employee to work without 6 wages during a trial or break-in period.” 7 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 39. 41. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs and all other members of the Training 8 Class for all time spent attending and completing required training sessions, Defendants 9 failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Training Class for all the compensable hours 10 11 they worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016. 42. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and for all Training Class 12 Members payment by Defendants at their regular rate of pay, or any applicable overtime 13 premium rate, whichever is higher, for all hours worked but not paid during the relevant 14 time period alleged herein, together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest as provided 15 by law. 16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of NRS § 608.018 and NRS § 608.140 18 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nevada Regular Rate Class Against Defendants) 19 20 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21 44. 22 for unpaid wages. 23 45. 24 25 26 27 28 NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action to sue NRS 608.018(1) provides as follows: An employer shall pay 1 1/2 times an employee’s regular wage rate whenever an employee who receives compensation for employment at a rate less than 1 1/2 times the minimum rate set forth in NRS 608.250 works: (a) More than 40 hours in any scheduled week of work; or (b) More than 8 hours in any workday unless by mutual agreement the employee works a scheduled 10 hours per day for 4 calendar days within any scheduled week of work. - 12 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 14 of 17 1 46. An employer shall pay 1 1/2 times an employee’s regular wage rate whenever an employee who receives compensation for employment at a rate not less than 1 1/2 times the minimum rate set forth in NRS 608.250 works more than 40 hours in any scheduled week of work. 2 3 4 5 6 7 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 47. rate except for a wage rate based on an hour of time, the rate of compensation for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 608.018 is determined by dividing the amount paid to an employee in a week by the number of hours worked by the employee during the week.”). 48. rate of pay for Plaintiffs and all members of the Nevada Regular Rate Class. 49. 24 25 26 27 Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for themselves and all Nevada Regular Rate Class Members that Defendants pay Plaintiffs and Nevada Regular Rate Class Members their full overtime wages at the applicable legal rate of pay during the relevant time period together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, as provided by law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing in Violation of NRS § 608.020-.050 and NRS § 608.140 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Against 22 23 Based on the allegations set forth above, Defendants failed to include non- discretionary compensation in the form of Guaranteed Down Rate wages in the regular 20 21 The “regular rate” under Nevada is the same as defined under federal law. See NAC 608.125(2) (“If an employee is paid by salary, piece rate or any other wage 18 19 NRS 608.018(2) provides as follows: Defendants) 50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 51. NRS 608.140 provides that an employee has a private right of action for unpaid wages. Plaintiff has made a demand for unpaid wages upon Defendant pursuant to NRS 608.140, but satisfactory payment was not received. 28 - 13 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 15 of 17 1 NRS 608.020 provides that “[w]henever an employer discharges an 2 employee, the wages and compensation earned and unpaid at the time of such 3 discharge shall become due and payable immediately.” 4 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 52. 53. NRS 608.040(1)(a-b), in relevant part, imposes a penalty on an employer 5 who fails to pay a discharged or quitting employee: “Within 3 days after the wages or 6 compensation of a discharged employee becomes due; or on the day the wages or 7 compensation is due to an employee who resigns or quits, the wages or compensation 8 of the employee continues at the same rate from the day the employee resigned, quit, or 9 was discharged until paid for 30 days, whichever is less.” 10 54. NRS 608.012 defines the term “wages” to specifically include “[a]mounts 11 due to a discharged employee or to an employee who resigns or quits pursuant to NRS 12 608.040.” 13 55. NRS 608.050(1) further grants each discharged or laid-off employee the 14 right to continue to “charge and collect wages in the sum agreed upon in the contract of 15 employment for each day the employer is in default, until the employee is paid in full, 16 without rendering any service therefor; but the employee shall cease to draw such wages 17 or salary 30 days after such default,” while NRS 608.050(2) provides “[e]very employee 18 . . . a lien as provided in NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, and all other rights and 19 remedies for the protection and enforcement of such salary or wages as the employee 20 would have been entitled to had the employee rendered services therefor in the manner 21 as last employed.” 22 56. By failing to pay Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Collective and the 23 Nevada Regular Rate and Training Classes their full wages due and owing to them, 24 Defendants have failed to timely remit all wages due and owing to Wages Due and Owing 25 Sub-Class Members. 26 57. Despite demand, Defendants willfully refuse and continue to refuse to pay 27 Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Members all the wages that were due and owing upon 28 the termination of their employment. - 14 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 16 of 17 1 58. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand for all Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class 2 Members that Defendants pay Wages Due and Owing Sub-Class Members thirty (30) 3 days wages under NRS 608.140 and 608.040, and an additional thirty (30) days wages 4 under NRS 608.140 and 608.050, together with attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest as 5 provided by law. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7 Wherefore Plaintiffs, by themselves and on behalf of all members of the Collective 8 and all Classes, pray for relief as follows relating to their class and collective action 9 allegations: 10 1. For an order conditionally certifying the action under the FLSA and 11 providing notice to all similarly situated employees so they may participate 12 in the lawsuit; 13 2. For an order certifying this action as a class action on behalf the proposed 14 Nevada state law Classes and providing notice to all Class Members so 15 they may participate in this lawsuit; 16 3. For an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Representatives of the Collective 17 18 and Classes and their counsel as Collective and Class Counsel; 4. For damages according to proof for overtime wages at the correct legal 19 rate of pay under federal law; 20 5. For liquidated damages for the improper overtime payments; 21 6. For damages according to proof for overtime wages at the correct legal 22 rate of pay under state law; 23 7. For continuation wages; 24 8. For a lien on the properties where Plaintiffs and all Nevada Class Members 25 labored; 26 9. For interest as provided by law at the maximum legal rate; 27 10. For reasonable attorneys’ fees authorized by statute; 28 11. For costs of suit incurred herein; - 15 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK Document 23-1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 17 of 17 1 12. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 2 13. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 3 DATED: March 28, 2024 4 5 6 7 THIERMAN BUCK LLP 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 (775) 284-1500 Fax (775) 703-5027 Email info@thiermanbuck.com www.thiermanbuck.com 8 9 10 HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC /s/ Joshua R. Hendrickson Joshua R. Hendrickson, Nev. Bar No. 12225 josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com THIERMAN BUCK LLP Mark R. Thierman, Nev. Bar No. 8285 mark@thiermanbuck.com Joshua D. Buck, Nev. Bar No. 12187 josh@thiermanbuck.com Leah L. Jones, Nev. Bar No. 13161 leah@thiermanbuck.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 16 FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.