1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

GERARD DRAETTA, and all 

others similarly situated pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. §216(b),

Plaintiff,

vs.

DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida

corporation, 

Defendant,

____________________________________________/

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, GERARD DRAETTA (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others 

similarly situated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), files the following Complaint against 

Defendant, DYCOM INDUSTRIES (“Dycom” or “Defendant”), and alleges:

1. This is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201-216 (the 

“FLSA”). 

2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, 

over the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris.

3. At all times material hereto, Defendant, DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC. was and is a Florida 

corporation located within Palm Beach County, Florida, and transacting business within 

Palm Beach County, Florida, which is located within this District.

4. At all times material hereto, DYCOM was the FLSA employer during Plaintiffs relevant 

period of employment.

5. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees during the relevant time period who 

handled goods or materials similar to those handled by Plaintiff or used the instrumentalities 

Case 9:20-cv-80888-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 5
2

of interstate commerce or the mails, thus making Defendants' business an enterprise covered 

by the FLSA.

6. Upon information and belief, the Defendants' corporation grossed or did business in excess 

of $500,000.00 annually during the relevant time period.

7. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 12, 2014 through and including April 3, 

2020. Plaintiff’s job title was Credit Collection Manager; however, Plaintiff was not in 

charge of any other employees, did not participate in the hiring or firing of anyone, did not 

set any employee salaries, and was not otherwise responsible for any managerial tasks, and 

was not a manager as that term is legally defined. For example, twice a year, all managers 

of the company gathered to discuss issues relating to company management; Plaintiff was 

never included in any of those meetings. 

8. Plaintiff’s annual rate of pay works out to be 45.28 hourly ($67.92 overtime rate) from 

February 2020 through April 2020, $44.23 hourly ($66.34 overtime rate) from February 

2019 through February 2020, $42.90 hourly ($64.35 overtime rate) from February 2018 

through February 2019, and $41.61 hourly ($61.92 overtime rate) from April 2017 through 

February 2018. 

9. Plaintiff’s work hours were 8-5, Monday through Friday, with one hour for lunch. 

Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked from 8-6 on Monday through Thursday; to 

be conservative and estimate on the low side, Plaintiff worked a minimum of 3 hours of 

overtime per week. Plaintiff was not compensated for any of his overtime. 

10. Funds owed to Plaintiff are as follows: 

Time Period Overtime Worked Overtime Rate Amount Owed

Case 9:20-cv-80888-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 5
3

April 2017 - Feb. 2018 129 hours (43 weeks x 

3 hours per week)

$61.92 $7,987.68

Feb. 2018 – Feb. 2019 156 (52 weeks x 3 

hours per week)

$64.34 $10,037.04

Feb. 2019 – Feb. 2020 156 (52 weeks x 3 

hours per week)

$66.34 $10,349.04

Feb. 2020 – April 

2020

24 (8 weeks x 3 hours 

per week)

$67.92 $1,630.08

Total unliquidated: $30,003.84

Total liquidated: $30,003.84

Total owed: $60,007.68

11. All acts and omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Palm Beach County, 

Florida. 

12. Jurisdiction is proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), 

and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337.

13. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b).

COUNT I:

FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE LAW VIOLATIONS

14. Plaintiff re-avers and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 13 above, as though fully set forth 

herein.

15. This case is brought as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) inasmuch as, upon 

information and belief, Defendant has employed numerous other employees, similarly 

situated to the Plaintiff, who have not been paid overtime for work performed in excess of 

Case 9:20-cv-80888-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 5
4

40 hours during the time period commencing three years prior to the filing of this Complaint 

through the date on which this Complaint was filed.

16. 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1) states, inter alia, that “if an employer employs an employee for 

more than 40 hours in any work week, the employer must compensate the employee for 

hours in excess of 40 at the rate of at least one and one and half times the employee's 

regular rate...”

17. Defendant’s failure, through today's date, to pay amounts owed pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, is willful and intentional. Defendants knew of the overtime requirements 

of the Act and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate proper 

payroll practices as they relate to the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled, and 

specifically requests, liquidated damages in an amount equal to double the unpaid time 

and a half that is due and owing, in the amount of $60,007.68.

18. Plaintiff further requests all reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs from the 

Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the FLSA as cited above, with all amounts 

set forth hereinabove to be proven at trial, in a trial by jury, and for entry of judgment 

for such other amounts as this Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GERARD DRAETTA, respectfully requests certification of 

a collective action of all current and former employees of Defendant, DYCOM INDUSTRIES, 

INC., and an award to Plaintiff and the collective double all unpaid overtime wages as provided 

by the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as all reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, 

and judgment for all such other amounts as this Court may deem and equitable under the 

circumstances.

Case 9:20-cv-80888-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 5
3rd xxxxxx

June

Case 9:20-cv-80888-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 5