Zirx Lawsuit

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 11
1
2
3
4
Stephen P. Connor, WSBA No. 14305

Anne-Marie E. Sargent, WSBA No. 27160
CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
11
CHRISTINA PASCUAL, on her own behalf

and on behalf of a CLASS OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED EMPLOYEES OF
DEFENDANT,
12
CLASS ACTION
No.
COMPLAINT FOR WAGES
Plaintiffs,
JURY OF TWELVE (12) DEMANDED
13
v.
14
15
ZIRX CONSUMER SERVICES, INC., a

California corporation,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff Christina Pascual, on her own behalf and on behalf, as representative, of a

CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES of Defendant Zirx Consumer Services,
Inc., alleges the following Complaint for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
201 et seq., Washington's Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46, and Washingtons Rebate Act,
RCW 49.52.
I. INTRODUCTION
23
24
25
1.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, brings this Complaint on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, challenging Defendants practice of
classifying its employees as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime wages
COMPLAINT - 1

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
for their hours worked over 40 in each week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., Washingtons Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.130(1), and
Washingtons Wage Rebate Act, RCW 49.52.050.
4
5
6
2.
Upon information and belief, Defendant has employed approximately more
than 100 class members nationwide since its inception in 2014.

3.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief on a class-wide basis, including unpaid
wages, return of wages unlawfully rebated, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs.
Plaintiff and the Class also seek to enjoin Defendant from continuing violations.
II. PARTIES
9
10
4.
Plaintiff Christina Pascual (Pascual) resides in Federal Way, Washington,
11
and worked for Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. in King County, Washington and
12
within this Courts jurisdiction.
13
14
5.
Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. (Zirx) is a California corporation
and does business in King County, Washington, and within this Court's jurisdiction.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
16
17
6.
This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
18
7.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
19
8.
Venue for this action properly lies in the Western District of Washington,
20
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), because the Defendant does business in this judicial district.
9.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under the
22
Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 and Washingtons Wage Rebate Act, RCW
23
49.52 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
24
25
COMPLAINT - 2

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
IV. FACTS
Factual Background.
10.
Defendant owns and operates valet parking services in Seattle, San Francisco,
Los Angeles, San Diego, Washington, DC, and in Manhattan and Brooklyn in New York
State. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to add additional business locations in
other states.
11.
Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees were employed by
Defendant as Agents. In that capacity, they were hired to park cars for Defendants customers
at rented lots, return parked cars to customers, and sell additional services such as filling up
10
11
12
the gas tanks, washing the cars, and selling monthly parking services.
12.
Defendant has all of its Agents sign Contractor Agreements that improperly
state that the Agents are independent contractors as opposed to employees.
13
13.
Defendant employs more than 100 Agents nationwide.
14
14.
Defendant employed approximately thirty to fifty Agents in the state of
15
Washington since its inception in Washington State, which, based on information on
16
Defendants website, is October of 2014.
17
15.
Defendant paid each of its Agents an hourly rate, with incentives for parking
18
and delivering cars, and selling additional services. Defendant does not pay its Agents an
19
overtime rate for their hours worked over forty in a week.
20
16.
Defendant misclassified its Agents as independent contractors, including based
21
on the following factors: Agents do not have their own business licenses or tax identification
22
numbers; Defendant provide training and equipment to Agents; Agents do not have their own
23
businesses or insurance coverage; Agents provided the very service that Defendant was in
24
business to provide (parking cars for customers); Agents provide services directly to
25
Defendants customers; Defendant maintains direct authority and control over the Agents
work; Defendant pays its Agents by the hour; Defendant requires Agents to perform the
COMPLAINT - 3

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
parking services himself or herself; Agents are required to work set shifts as devised by
Defendant; and, at least for a portion of the class period, Agents were required to wear
Defendants uniform and follow its dress code policy.
17.
Agents regularly work overtime hours for Defendant.
18.
Defendant paid Agents their regular rate and earned incentives for each hour
of work, but failed to pay the lawful overtime rate for their hours worked over 40 in one work
week.
Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Christina Pascual
19.
Plaintiff Pascual worked for Defendant as a parking Agent from approximately
10
November 7, 2014 through July 31, 2015. She provided valet parking services to clients in
11
Seattle on behalf of Defendant.
12
20.
At the start of her employment, Plaintiff earned an hourly rate of $14 per hour
13
for parking cars while employed with Defendant, with an additional $2 for every car parked or
14
returned, and $4 additional paid for every service Plaintiff sold.
15
21.
For the first three or four months of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant,
16
she regularly worked 50 to 60 hours per week. She was paid the rate of $14 per hour for her
17
hours worked, including her overtime hours. Defendant did not pay her an overtime rate for
18
her hours worked over 40 in a week.
19
22.
In approximately January of 2015, Defendant raised the hourly rate of its
20
Agents to $15 per hour. Beginning in January of 2015, Plaintiff worked less overtime than she
21
had in the preceding months due to attendance in college, but continued to work some
22
overtime during this time. Again, Defendant failed to pay her the legal overtime rate for her
23
overtime hours worked.
24
25
23.
Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor, including based
on the following factors: Plaintiff did not have her own business licenses or tax identification
numbers; Defendant provided training and equipment to Plaintiff; Plaintiff did not have her
COMPLAINT - 4

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
own businesses or insurance coverage; Plaintiff provided the very service that Defendant was
in business to provide (parking cars for customers); Plaintiff provided services directly to
Defendants customers; Defendant maintained direct authority and control over Plaintiffs
work; Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly rate; Defendant required Plaintiff to perform the
parking services herself; Plaintiff was required to work set shifts as dictated by Defendant;
and Plaintiff was required to wear Defendants uniform in order to work.
24.
Plaintiffs relationship with Defendant was that of employee and employer.
25.
Upon information and belief, putative class members worked significant hours
9
10
11
12
13
14
of overtime.
26.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and putative class members the proper
overtime rate for their hours worked over 40 in a week.

27.
Putative class members are employees for purposes of the FLSA and
Washingtons wage and hour laws.

28.
Upon information and belief, Defendant follows uniform practices with respect
15
to these employment policies and procedures at all locations, including having Agents sign
16
the same unlawful agreements, and failed to pay similarly situated employees throughout the
17
state of Washington and nationwide the lawful overtime rate for their overtime hours worked.
18
V. COLLECTION ACTION ALLEGATIONS
19
29.
Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
20
30.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
21
situated pursuant to Section 16 of the FLSA, as a statutory opt-in class action.
22
31.
23
All hourly paid individuals who worked for Defendant providing valet parking
services from the commencement of Defendants operations through the present.
24
25
32.
The class consists of:
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that the definition of the class
will be further refined following discovery of Defendants books and records.

COMPLAINT - 5

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
33.
1
2
Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class without discovery of
defendants books and records but estimates the class to exceed 250 individuals.
34.
There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over
any questions affecting individual members only. These factual and legal questions include
the existence and legality of Defendants policy with respect to payment of overtime, as well
as the appropriate injunctive relief needed to remedy such illegal policy.
7
8
9
35.
Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
36.
The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class
class.
10
in that Plaintiff was denied mandatory overtime wages as a result of Defendants practices
11
and policies. This is the predominate issue which pertains to the claims of each and every
12
class member.
13
14
15
37.
The class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.

38.
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as her
16
interests are in alignment with those of the entire class, i.e., to prove and then eradicate
17
Defendants illegal employment practice of failing to pay lawful overtime wages.
18
39.
Counsel for Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the class. Such
19
counsel is experienced with employment/class litigation and has previously served as class
20
counsel in employment litigation under Section 16 of the FLSA.
21
40.
Plaintiff and the class she represents have suffered and will continue to suffer
22
irreparable damage from the illegal policy, practice and custom regarding Defendants pay
23
practices.
24
41.
Defendant has engaged in a continuing violation of the FLSA.
25
COMPLAINT - 6

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
42.
Plaintiff, as well as the individuals she represents, was denied overtime wages
as a result of Defendants pay practices. This violation was intended by Defendant and was
willfully done.
4
5
43.
Defendant's action in denying overtime wages to Plaintiff was intentional and
constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
6
7
44.
Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
45.
Pursuant to CR 23, Plaintiff brings this class action on her own behalf and on
9
10
behalf of all employees similarly situated (Class Members or Class) pursuant to RCW
49.46 and RCW 49.52.
11
46.
12
All Agents who worked for Defendant in the State of Washington from the
commencement of its operations in Washington through the present.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47.
Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:
Numerosity. The class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that
joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed
thirty to fifty Agents in Washington during the proposed class period.
48.
Common Questions of Law and Fact. The questions of law are the same for
all of the class members, namely, whether class members were misclassified for purposes of
calculating overtime pay and employment benefits, whether employees were subject to other
wage and hour violations, and Defendants failure to pay overtime wages to class members
was willful entitling the class to double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070.
49.
Representatives Claims are Typical of Class. Plaintiffs claims are typical
of the class, namely, that she worked for Defendant, was misclassified as an independent
contractor, and was not paid overtime pay for her overtime hours.
50.
Representative Party Will Fairly and Adequately Protect Class. Plaintiff
Pascual will adequately represent and protect the interests of the class because she has
COMPLAINT - 7

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
retained competent and experienced class counsel and none of her interests in the litigation
are antagonistic to the other members of the class.

51.
A Class Action is Maintainable. The prosecution of separate actions by
individual members of the class against Defendant on the class-based wage and hour claims
and other state law claims would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and
incompatible standards of treatment for wage and hour purposes of the employees under
Washingtons laws. Defendant has acted and continues to act in a manner that is generally
applicable to all members of the class making final injunctive relief appropriate prohibiting
continued wage and hour violations. The questions of law and fact common to all members of
10
the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the class because
11
the members of the class were subjected to the same practices of Defendant, and a class action
12
is the superior method to adjudicate this controversy. Upon information and belief, there are
13
no other pending class actions concerning these issues.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
14
52.
15
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
16
set forth herein.
17
A.
18
Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
53.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay
19
when they worked more than forty hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
20
Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).
21
54.
Defendants violations of the FLSA are willful pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 255(a).
22
55.
Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged by Defendants violations
23
of the FLSA in amounts to be determined at trial.
24
25
COMPLAINT - 8

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
B.
Violations of Washingtons Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.

56.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay
when the employees worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of Washingtons
Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 et seq.

57.
of Washingtons Minimum Wage Act in amounts to be determined at trial.
C.
8
9
10
11
12
Violations of Washingtons Wage Rebate Act, RCW 49.52.

58.
Defendants aforementioned failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime rates for their overtime hours is a violation of Washingtons Wage
Rebate Act, RCW 49.52 et seq.
59.
of Washingtons Wage Rebate Act in amounts to be determined at trial.
13
14
15
16
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated employees of
Defendant request the following relief:
A.
An order certifying a collective action of all Agents who worked for
17
Defendant at any of its locations from the commencement of Defendants
18
operations through the present;
19
B.
An order certifying a CR 23 class of all Agents who worked for Defendant
20
in Washington State from the commencement of Defendants operations in
21
Washington through the present;
22
C.
23
24
25
An order certifying CR 23 classes in other states in which Defendant has

locations;
D.
An order appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Collective Action

and Class;
COMPLAINT - 9

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
E.
2
3
An order appointing Stephen P. Connor and Anne-Marie E. Sargent of

Connor & Sargent PLLC, as the counsel for the Class;
F.
Judgment against Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. for wages due to
Plaintiff and the classes of all similarly situated employees, including
overtime pay, in an amount to be determined at trial;
G.
Judgment against Defendant for exemplary damages for unlawfully and
willfully withholding wages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 USC 216(b) and 29
U.S.C.S. 255(a), RCW 49.52.070, and the laws of other states;
H.
10
11
An order permanently enjoining Defendant from continuing its practice of

the aforementioned wage and hour law violations;
I.
An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA 29
12
USC 216(b), RCW 49.46.090, RCW 49.48.030, RCW 49.52.070, and the
13
laws of other states;
14
J.
15
Pre-judgment interest on all back wages and damages awarded to Plaintiff

and the Class;
16
K.
Damages in the amount of any adverse tax consequences of any award;
17
L.
Allowing Plaintiff to amend its pleadings to conform to the proof at trial;
18
19
20
and
M.
For such other relief in law or equity, which the Court finds appropriate,
just or equitable.
21
22
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 10

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856
DATED this 7th day of December, 2015.

2
3
By s/Anne-Marie E. Sargent
Anne-Marie E. Sargent, WSBA No. 27160
Connor & Sargent PLLC
Seattle, WA 98104
Email: aes@cslawfirm.net
Telephone: (206) 654-4011
4
5
6
7
8
12
By s/Stephen P. Connor
Stephen P. Connor, WSBA No. 14305
Connor & Sargent PLLC
Seattle, WA 98104
Email: steve@cslawfirm.net
Telephone: (206) 264-1818
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 11

Seattle WA 98104
(206) 654-5050 FAX (206) 340-8856

Zirx Lawsuit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Zirx Lawsuit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 11

Stephen P. Connor, WSBA No. 14305

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CHRISTINA PASCUAL, on her own behalf

ZIRX CONSUMER SERVICES, INC., a

Plaintiff Christina Pascual, on her own behalf and on behalf, as representative, of a

Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, brings this Complaint on her own

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 11

Washingtons Wage Rebate Act, RCW 49.52.050.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has employed approximately more

than 100 class members nationwide since its inception in 2014.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief on a class-wide basis, including unpaid

Plaintiff Christina Pascual (Pascual) resides in Federal Way, Washington,

within this Courts jurisdiction.

Defendant Zirx Consumer Services, Inc. (Zirx) is a California corporation

amended, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

49.52 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 11

Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees were employed by

state that the Agents are independent contractors as opposed to employees.

Defendant employs more than 100 Agents nationwide.

Defendant employed approximately thirty to fifty Agents in the state of

Washington since its inception in Washington State, which, based on information on

Defendants website, is October of 2014.

overtime rate for their hours worked over forty in a week.

Defendant misclassified its Agents as independent contractors, including based

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 4 of 11

Defendants uniform and follow its dress code policy.

Agents regularly work overtime hours for Defendant.

Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Christina Pascual

Plaintiff Pascual worked for Defendant as a parking Agent from approximately

Seattle on behalf of Defendant.

returned, and $4 additional paid for every service Plaintiff sold.

her hours worked over 40 in a week.

In approximately January of 2015, Defendant raised the hourly rate of its

overtime hours worked.

Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor, including based

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 5 of 11

and Plaintiff was required to wear Defendants uniform in order to work.

Plaintiffs relationship with Defendant was that of employee and employer.

overtime rate for their hours worked over 40 in a week.

Washingtons wage and hour laws.

V. COLLECTION ACTION ALLEGATIONS

situated pursuant to Section 16 of the FLSA, as a statutory opt-in class action.

The class consists of:

will be further refined following discovery of Defendants books and records.

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 6 of 11

as the appropriate injunctive relief needed to remedy such illegal policy.

adjudication of the controversy.

Defendants illegal employment practice of failing to pay lawful overtime wages.

counsel in employment litigation under Section 16 of the FLSA.

Defendant has engaged in a continuing violation of the FLSA.

CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC

Case 2:15-cv-01923 Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 7 of 11

Defendant's action in denying overtime wages to Plaintiff was intentional and

constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:

Numerosity. The class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that