Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

ADAN ALEJO ALEA,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s),

v.

AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC,

PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP.,

ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP.,

ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ, individually

Defendants,

________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C § 216(b)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and other similarly situated 

individuals, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendants

AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE 

CORP., ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP., ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, 

and JANETTE SUAREZ individually, and alleges:

JURISDICTION VENUES AND PARTIES

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, 

and for retaliation under the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction 

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”).

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 23
Page 2 of 23

2. Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA is a resident of Dade County, Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the Plaintiff was a covered employee for 

purposes of the Act.

3. Corporate Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC,

PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND 

DESIGN CORP., are Florida for Profit Corporations doing business in Dade

County, within the jurisdiction of this Court. At all times material hereto,

Defendants were and are engaged in interstate commerce. 

4. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §791.2, Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES 

INC, PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA 

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP. are joint employers of Plaintiff. 

5. The individual Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ 

were and are now, the owners/partners/officers and managers of Defendant 

Corporations AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL 

OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP.

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ are the 

employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 

3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)].

6. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Dade County Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Court.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 23
Page 3 of 23

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from 

the Defendants regular and overtime compensation liquidated damages, retaliatory 

damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of Fair 

Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”) 

on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly situated 

to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) who were not paid minimum wages, or/and 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after May 

2017, (the “material time”) without being compensated pursuant to the FLSA.

8. Corporate Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC,

PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA CONSTRUCTION 

AND DESIGN CORP. are Florida corporations performing business in MiamiDade County. 

9. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL 

OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP. 

were joint employers because: 1) these companies through their 

owners/partners/managers ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ

had equal and absolute control over the Plaintiff and other employees similarly 

situated; 2) ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ assigned 

duties and paid to Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated; 3) AEROWAYS 

STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and 

ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP., through their owners/managers 

ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ, jointly and equally 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 23
Page 4 of 23

determined terms and employment conditions of Plaintiff and other employees 

similarly situated; 4) the work of Plaintiff’s simultaneously benefited the three

corporations; 5) the work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals was an integral part of the business operation of AEROWAYS 

STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and 

ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP. 6) Plaintiff regularly was paid 

with checks from the three companies.

10. Therefore, because the work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated 

individuals, simultaneously benefited all the Defendants and directly or indirectly 

furthered their joint interest, Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES 

INC, PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA 

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP., are joint employers as defined in 29 

C.F.R. §791.2.

11. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC, PROFESSIONAL 

OCEAN SERVICE CORP., and ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP.,

hereinafter will be called collectively AEROWAYS STAFFING, or corporate 

Defendant.

12. The asserted class for this collective action includes all current and former

employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, performing non-exempted duties as 

janitors and aircraft cleaning employees in furtherance of the business of 

Defendants, and who were not paid minimum wages and/or worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours during one or more workweeks within the material time (the 

"asserted class").

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 23
Page 5 of 23

13. Corporate Defendant AEROWAYS STAFFING is a service contractor or 

subcontractor providing janitorial and ramp services at Miami International 

Airport.

14. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ employed Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA as a janitor from 

approximately December 25, 2009, through March 25, 2020, or more than 10 years. 

However, for FLSA purposes Plaintiff’s relevant employment period is 148 weeks. 

15. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and all the similarly situated employees were 

performing their duties for the benefit of and on behalf of the Defendants.

16. The Plaintiff was a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee working more than 

40 hours in a week period. During the relevant period, the Plaintiff was paid, or it 

was supposed to be paid at the Prevailing Living Wage Rate established under 

County Code Section 2-8.9. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff had a wage rate 

of $ 17.06 an hour.

17. While employed by the Defendants Plaintiff had a very irregular schedule, but most 

of the weeks, Plaintiff worked 5 or 6 days per week, more than 40 hours weekly.

The Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch periods.

18. However, Plaintiff alleges that during his time of employment, every week 

Defendants improperly and automatically deducted 2.5 or 3 hours weekly from 

compensable time as lunchtime took, although Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide 

lunch breaks.

19. In weeks in which Plaintiff worked 5 days Defendants improperly and 

automatically deducted from Plaintiff’s wages 2.5 hours as lunchtime. In weeks in 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 23
Page 6 of 23

which Plaintiff worked 6 days Defendants improperly and automatically deducted 

from Plaintiff’s wages 3 hours as lunchtime. 

20. Those 2.5, or 3 hours automatically deducted from compensable time, constitute 

2.5 or 3 additional overtime hours that never were paid to Plaintiff.

21. Moreover, Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, and he was required by the employer 

to report working at a certain hour. Plaintiff showed up ready for work to the job 

site at the Miami International Airport, but due to the nature and the circumstances 

around the work performed at MIA, Plaintiff has to wait a minimum of 2 hours 

before being able to perform his work. Waiting at the job site was an integral part 

of the Plaintiffs’ principal activities. Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals were engaged to wait. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was not compensated for 

a minimum of 10 hours every week period. Plaintiff’s waiting time is compensable 

under 29 CFR §785.14 and § 790.7 (h).

22. Every week Plaintiff was paid wages for 40 or less than 40 regular hours. But he 

was not paid for all his working hours. The automatic deductions of lunch hours 

and uncompensated waiting time resulted in regular and overtime hours that were 

not paid at any rate, not even the minimum wage rate as established by the FLSA.

23. While employed with Defendants Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals 

in the asserted class regularly worked overtime hours (hours in excess of forty 

(forty) per workweek referred herein as “overtime hours”) and were not paid 

overtime compensation at the rate of one-half of their regular rate of pay (the

"overtime rate"), for all of the overtime hours worked, based in part upon 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 23
Page 7 of 23

Defendants’ custom and practice of failing to credit and pay for overtime hours 

actually worked, among other violations of the FLSA. 

24. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals did not clock-in and out, but they 

signed timesheets and the Defendants were able to keep track of the hours worked 

by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

25. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular wages and 

overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that 

he worked in excess of forty (40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

26. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were paid bi-weekly with paystubs 

without any paystub or payroll records showing basic information about the job 

title and classification; the number of days worked every week; the number of 

hours worked each day; the gross wages earned and deductions made; annual 

wages paid; a record of fringe benefit payments including contributions to 

approved plans, etc.

27. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and all 

other employees in the asserted class, and the compensation actually paid to such

employees should be in the possession and custody of Defendants. However, upon 

information and belief, the Defendants did not maintain accurate and complete time 

records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and all other employees in the asserted 

class.

28. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants failed to comply with Title 29

U.S.C. §§ 201-209 in that Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 23
Page 8 of 23

performed services and labor for Defendants for which Defendants made no 

provision to pay Plaintiff and the other employees in the asserted class the 

compensation to which they were lawfully entitled to all of the hours worked in 

excess of forty within a workweek.

29. Plaintiff was not in agreement with the lack of payment for overtime hours and for 

unpaid waiting time, and he complained with the manager Betty Lear. Plaintiff 

requested to be paid for overtime hours and for uncompensated waiting hours. 

30. As a result, Plaintiff was fired on or about March 25, 2020.

31. At the times mentioned, individual Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ were the owners and managers of AEROWAYS STAFFING.

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ were the 

employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 

3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, these

individual Defendants acted directly in the interests of AEROWAYS STAFFING 

in relation to their employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL and JANETTE SUAREZ had absolute 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and 

working conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and they are

jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff and the asserted class’ damages. 

32. The Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, and he never had 

access to check his working hours every week. It is going impossible for him to 

provide a good faith estimate of overtime hours without appropriate discovery. At 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23

this time, he will provide a good faith estimate of unpaid waiting time of 10 hours 

per week., which constitutes unpaid compensable working hours. 

33. The Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime

wages that never were paid to him at the mandatory rate of time and a half his

regular rate, liquidated damages, retaliatory damages, and any other relief as 

allowable by law. 

34. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him individually, and on behalf of the asserted class, and incurred attorney’s fees 

and costs in bringing this action. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216 (b), Plaintiff is entitled 

to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION; 

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

35. Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-34 above as if set out in full herein. 

36. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Employer/Defendant operates as an 

organization that sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States. Employer/Defendant employs more than two 

employees affecting interstate commerce. The Employer/Defendant uses the 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce and otherwise regularly engages in 

interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees. Upon information 

and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was always more 

than $500,000 per annum. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 9 of 23
Page 10 of 23

37. The Plaintiff was employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, and 

his work for the Employer/Defendant likewise affected interstate commerce. 

Plaintiff was a janitorial employee who regularly provided janitorial services to 

enterprises engaged in interstate commerce. In addition, Plaintiff handled/worked 

on goods and/or materials that were moved across State lines at any time during the 

business. Thus, Plaintiff is a covered employee for the purpose of the Act. By 

reason of the foregoing, there is FLSA individual coverage.

38. Plaintiff is entitled to be paid time and one-half of the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay

for each hour worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek. All similarly 

situated employees (comprising the members of the asserted class) are similarly 

owed their overtime rate for each overtime hour they worked and were not properly 

paid.

39. At all times material, the Employers/Defendants failed to comply with Title 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. In that, Plaintiff and 

those similarly-situated performed services and worked in excess of the maximum 

hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by the Defendants to properly 

pay them at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty 

hours (40) per workweek as provided in said Act.

40. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff 

and the similarly situated employees in the asserted class have suffered damages 

plus incurring costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

41. As a result of Defendants' willful violation of the Act, Plaintiff and those similarly

situated to Plaintiff are entitled to liquidated damages.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and those similarly situated respectfully 

requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and other similarly situated and against the 

Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ, based on Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA actual damages in the amount shown to 

be due for unpaid wages and overtime compensation for hours worked more 

than forty weekly, with interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just and/or 

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all 

issues triable as of right by a jury.

COUNT II:

F.L.S.A. WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION: 

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

42. Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-34 of this complaint as if set out in full herein.

43. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING was 

an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23

commerce as defined in § 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s). 

The annual gross sales volume of the corporate Defendants was in excess of 

$500,000.00 per annum. Alternatively, Plaintiff and those employees similarly 

situated worked in interstate commerce to fall within the protections of the Act.

44. This action is brought by Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and those similarlysituated to recover from the Employer AEROWAYS STAFFING unpaid minimum 

wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically 

under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §206. 

45. U.S.C. §206 states “Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any 

workweek is engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, or is 

employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce, wages at the following rates: 

(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—

(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2008; 

(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and 

(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day

46. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ employed Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA as a janitor from 

approximately December 25, 2009, through March 25, 2020, or more than 10 years. 

However, for FLSA purposes Plaintiff’s relevant employment period is 148 weeks. 

47. The Plaintiff was a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee working more than 

40 hours in a week period. During the relevant period, the Plaintiff was paid, or it 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 12 of 23
Page 13 of 23

was supposed to be paid at the Prevailing Living Wage Rate established under 

County Code Section 2-8.9. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff had a wage rate 

of $ 17.06 an hour.

48. While employed by the Defendants Plaintiff had a very irregular schedule, but most 

of the weeks, Plaintiff worked 5 or 6 days per week, more than 40 hours weekly. 

The Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch periods.

49. However, Plaintiff alleges that during his time of employment, he had an irregular 

schedule, and he worked day and night shifts. Plaintiff was required by the 

employer to report working at a certain hour, Plaintiff showed up ready for work to 

the job site at the Miami International Airport, but due to the nature and the 

circumstances around the work performed at MIA, Plaintiff has to wait a minimum 

of 2 hours before being able to perform his work. Waiting at the job site for the 

aircraft to arrive, was an integral part of the Plaintiffs’ principal activities. Plaintiff 

and other similarly situated individuals were engaged to wait. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff was not compensated for a minimum of 10 hours every week period. 

Plaintiff’s waiting time is compensable under 29 CFR §785.14 and § 790.7 (h).

50. Every week Plaintiff was paid wages for 40 or less than 40 regular hours. But he 

was not paid for all his working hours. 

51. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals did not clock-in and out, but they 

signed timesheets and the Defendants were able to keep track of the hours worked 

by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

52. Therefore, Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked. There is a substantial 

number of hours that were not compensated at any rate, not even at the minimum 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23

wage rate as established by 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically under the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. §206. 

53. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and all 

other employees, and the compensation actually paid to such employees should be 

in the possession and custody of Defendants. However, upon information and 

belief, Defendants did not maintain accurate and complete time records of hours 

worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals 

54. Defendants violated the record-keeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

55. Upon information and belief, Defendants never posted any notice, as required by 

the Fair Labor Standards Act and Federal Law, to inform employees of their Federal 

rights to overtime and minimum wage payments.

56. Defendants violated the Posting requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

57. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the 

time of the filing of this complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid 

wages are as follows: 

*Please note that these amounts are based on a preliminary calculation and that 

these figures could be subject to modification as discovery could dictate. 

Plaintiff is subjected to the minimum wages of the Dade County Prevailing Living 

Wage Rate established under County Code Section 2-8.9., which is higher than the 

federal minimum wage. As per FLSA regulations, the higher minimum wage 

applies.

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid wages:

Twenty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Nine Dollars and 50/100 

($24,259.50)

b. Calculation of such wages: 

 Total time of employment: more than 10 years

Total relevant weeks of employment: 148 weeks 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 14 of 23
Page 15 of 23

Total of unpaid regular hours: 10 hours waiting time weekly.

1.- Minimum wages from May 21, 2017 to September 30, 2018

Total relevant weeks: 71 weeks

Total of unpaid regular hours: 10 hours waiting time weekly.

Regular rate: $16.15

 $16.15 x 10 hours= $161.50 x 71 weeks= 11,466.50

 2.- Minimum wages from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019

Total relevant weeks: 52 weeks

Total of unpaid regular hours: 10 hours waiting time weekly.

Regular rate: $16.40

 $16.40 x 10 hours= $164.00 x 52 weeks= $8,528.00

 3.- Minimum wages from October 1, 2019 to March 25, 2020

Total relevant weeks: 25 weeks

Total of unpaid regular hours: 10 hours waiting time weekly.

Regular rate: $17.06

 $17.06 x 10 hours= $170.60 x 25 weeks= $4,265.00

 

 Total #1, #2, #3 = $24,259.50

c. Nature of wages:

This amount represents unpaid minimum wages at Dade County Prevailing 

Living Wage Rate.

58. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA is entitled 

to be paid minimum wages as required by the FLSA. All similarly situated 

employees (comprising the members of the asserted class) are similarly owed their 

minimum wages for every hour they worked and were not properly compensated.

59. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff minimum wages as 

required by the law of the United States, and remain owing Plaintiff these minimum 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 15 of 23
Page 16 of 23

wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants as set 

forth above. 

60. Defendants knew and/or showed a reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act 

concerning the payment of minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards 

Act and remain owing Plaintiff these minimum wages as set forth above, and 

Plaintiff is entitled to recover double damages. 

61. At the times mentioned, individual Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ were the owners and managers of AEROWAYS STAFFING. 

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ were the 

employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 

3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, these 

individual Defendants acted directly in the interests of AEROWAYS STAFFING 

in relation to their employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL and JANETTE SUAREZ had absolute 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and 

working conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and they are 

jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff and the asserted class’ damages. 

62. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff minimum 

wages as required by the law of the United States, and remain owing Plaintiff these 

minimum wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with 

Defendants as set forth above.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 16 of 23
Page 17 of 23

63. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff 

and the similarly situated employees in the asserted class have suffered damages 

plus incurring costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

64. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and those similarly situated respectfully 

request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and against the Defendants

AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE 

SUAREZ based on Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid 

minimum wages, with interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just and/or 

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all 

issues triable as of right by a jury.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23

COUNT III:

FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 215 (a)(3) 

RETALIATION; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

65. Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-34 of this complaint as if set out in full herein.

66. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING was 

an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for

commerce as defined in § 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s). 

The annual gross sales volume of the corporate Defendants was more than

$500,000.00 per annum. Alternatively, Plaintiff and those employees similarly 

situated worked in interstate commerce to fall within the protections of the Act.

67. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) (1) states, "if an employer employs an employee for more than 

forty hours in any workweek, the employer must compensate the employee for 

hours in excess of forty at the rate of at least one and one-half times the employee's 

regular rate..."

68. 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1) states “....an employer must pay a minimum wage of 

$5.15/hr to an employee who is engaged in commerce....” [29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1)].

69. Likewise, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) states... it shall be unlawful for any person— “to 

discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such 

employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any 

proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in 

any such proceeding,......” 

70. Defendant AEROWAYS STAFFING was subjected to the provisions of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 18 of 23
Page 19 of 23

71. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ employed Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA as a janitor from 

approximately December 25, 2009, through March 25, 2020, or more than 10 years. 

However, for FLSA purposes Plaintiff’s relevant employment period is 148 weeks. 

72. The Plaintiff was a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee working more than 

40 hours in a week period. During the relevant period, the Plaintiff was paid, or it 

was supposed to be paid at the Prevailing Living Wage Rate established under 

County Code Section 2-8.9. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff had a wage rate 

of $ 17.06 an hour.

73. While employed by the Defendants Plaintiff had a very irregular schedule, but most 

of the weeks, Plaintiff worked 5 or 6 days per week, more than 40 hours weekly. 

The Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch periods.

74. However, Plaintiff alleges that during his time of employment, every week 

Defendants improperly and automatically deducted 2.5 or 3 hours weekly from 

compensable time as lunchtime took, although Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide 

lunch breaks.

75. Those 2.5, or 3 hours automatically deducted from compensable time, constitute 

2.5 or 3 additional overtime hours that never were paid to Plaintiff.

76. Moreover, Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, and he was required by the employer 

to report working at a certain hour. Plaintiff showed up ready for work to the job 

site at the Miami International Airport, but due to the nature and the circumstances 

around the work performed at MIA, Plaintiff has to wait a minimum of 2 hours 

before being able to perform his work. Waiting at the job site was an integral part 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 19 of 23
Page 20 of 23

of the Plaintiffs’ principal activities. Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals were engaged to wait. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was not compensated for 

a minimum of 10 hours every week period. Plaintiff’s waiting time is compensable 

under 29 CFR §785.14 and § 790.7 (h).

77. Every week Plaintiff was paid wages for 40 or less than 40 regular hours. But he 

was not paid for all his working hours, as established by the FLSA.

78. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals did not clock-in and out, but they 

signed timesheets and the Defendants were able to keep track of the hours worked 

by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

79. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular wages and 

overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that 

he worked in excess of forty (40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

80. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were paid bi-weekly with paystubs 

without any paystub or payroll records showing basic information about the job 

title and classification; the number of days worked every week; the number of 

hours worked each day; the gross wages earned and deductions made; annual 

wages paid; a record of fringe benefit payments including contributions to 

approved plans, etc.

81. Plaintiff was not in agreement with the lack of payment for overtime hours and for 

unpaid waiting time, and he complained with the manager Betty Lear. 

82. On or about March 25, 2020, the Plaintiff complained and requested to be paid for 

overtime hours and for uncompensated waiting hours. 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 20 of 23
Page 21 of 23

83. This complaint about overtime payment and unpaid hours constituted protected 

activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

84. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaint, he was fired by the Defendants the same day, 

March 25, 2020.

85. At all times during his employment, the Plaintiff performed his work satisfactorily, 

and there was no reason other than a retaliatory action to terminate Plaintiff’s 

employment with Defendants.

86. The termination of Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA by the Defendants was directly 

and proximately caused by Defendants’ unjustified retaliation against Plaintiff 

because of his complaints about overtime payment, in violation of Federal Law.

87. Moreover, Plaintiff’s termination came just immediately after Plaintiff’s 

participation in protected activity. 

88. At the times mentioned, individual Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and 

JANETTE SUAREZ were the owners and managers of AEROWAYS STAFFING. 

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ were the 

employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 

3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, these 

individual Defendants acted directly in the interests of AEROWAYS STAFFING 

in relation to their employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 

Defendants ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL and JANETTE SUAREZ had absolute 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and 

working conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and they are 

jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff and the asserted class’ damages. 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 21 of 23
Page 22 of 23

89. Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING and ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL AND 

JANETTE SUAREZ willfully and maliciously retaliated against Plaintiff by 

engaging in retaliatory actions that were materially adverse to a reasonable 

employee, and with the purpose to dissuade Plaintiff from exercising his rights 

under 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). 

90. The motivating factor which caused Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA to be fired, as 

described above was his complaint seeking overtime wages from the Defendants. 

In other words, Plaintiff would not have been fired, but for his complaint for 

overtime wages.

91. The Defendants’ adverse actions against Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA were in 

direct violation of 29 U.S.C. 215 (a) (3) and, as a direct result, Plaintiff has been 

damaged.

92. Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA has retained the law offices of the undersigned 

attorney to represent him in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court:

A. Enter judgment declaring that the firing of Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA by 

Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING, ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and

JANETTE SUAREZ was an unlawful act of retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. 

215 (a) (3).

B. Enter judgment against Defendants AEROWAYS STAFFING and ANTONIO 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23

C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE SUAREZ awarding Plaintiff liquidated 

damages in an amount equal to the amount awarded as consequential damages;

C. For all back wages from the date of discharge to the present date and an equal 

amount of back wages as liquidated damages

D. Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this 

suit; and

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. 

F. Reinstatement and promotion and injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants 

from discriminating in the manner described above, emotional distress and 

humiliation, and pain and suffering, front wages until Plaintiff becomes 65 years 

of age as well as all other damages recoverable as per 29 U.S.C. 216(b). 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA and demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right 

by jury

DATED: May 25, 2020

 Respectfully submitted,

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 23 of 23