1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 

SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM 

BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C § 216(B))

Plaintiff SL MONROE, SR. (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals, sue the 

Defendants DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, 

PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC SIRIANNI (collectively the “Defendants”),

and allege:

JURISDICTION

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

retaliatory discharge under the laws of the United States. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §

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

VENUE

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 1 of 9
2

4. DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute 

and PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC (collectively the “Corporate Defendants”) are limited 

liability companies and Florida residents, respectively, having their main places of business in 

Palm Beach County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants, and at all times 

material hereto were and are engaged in interstate commerce.

5. DOMINIC SIRIANNI (individually the “Individual Defendant”), upon information 

and belief, resides in Broward County, Florida.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION 

BY PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC (OVERTIME)

6. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-5

above as if set out in full herein. 

7. This action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from the 

Corporate Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, 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. § 207. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states, “No 

employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours unless such 

employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above-specified at a 

rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were

engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants

operate as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provide its services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtain and solicit funds from nonCase 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

Florida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, use telephonic transmissions going over 

state lines to do its business, transmit funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly

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

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendants were at all times material hereto in 

excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or Plaintiff and those similarly situated, by virtue of working 

in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

9. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times 

hereafter mentioned, an enterprise engaged in 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) and/or Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated were and/or are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate 

Defendants. The Corporate Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the Act applies. 

The Corporate Defendants are an addiction treatment center and, through its business activity, 

affect interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise affects 

interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a Behavioral Health 

Technician for the Corporate Defendants’ business.

10. While employed by the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 50 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and onehalf times the regular rate at which he was employed. However, the Corporate Defendants did not 

pay the Plaintiff any overtime he worked.

11. Plaintiff was employed as a Behavioral Health Technician performing the same or 

similar duties as that of those other similarly situated Behavioral Health Technicians whom

Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

12. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately July 20, 2018, 

through April 1, 2020. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 88.7 compensable weeks under 

the Act, or 88.7 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the date of the filing of the 

instant action.

13. The Corporate Defendants paid Plaintiff on average approximately $15.25 per hour. 

14. However, the Corporate Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours 

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

15. In addition, the Corporate Defendants were in the habit of routinely “shaving off” 

from Plaintiff’s weekly salary. As a result, the Corporate Defendants paid Plaintiff less hours than 

he actually worked. Therefore, the Corporate Defendants paid $0.00 for certain hours that Plaintiff 

worked for the Corporate Defendants. Furthermore, the Corporate Defendants did not compensate 

Plaintiff for all of his earned paid time off (“PTO”) and flextime.

16. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire 

and/or from 3 (three) years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint.

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

time of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages is as 

follows:

a. Actual Damages: $6,763.375

i. Calculation: $15.25 (average hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 10 (approximate 

number of overtime hours) x 88.7 (compensable weeks) = $6,763.375

b. Liquidated Damages: $6,763.375

c. Total Damages: $13,526.75 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

18. At all times material hereto, the Corporate 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 Corporate 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 the Act. 

The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or

former employees of the Corporate Defendants who are and who were subject to the unlawful 

payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendants and were not paid time and one half 

of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty.

19. The Corporate Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the 

provisions of the Act concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiff and 

those similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s and those 

similarly situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above, and 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. The Corporate 

Defendants never posted any notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their 

federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

20. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing 

Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

21. 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.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

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

Defendants on the basis of the Corporate Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

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

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

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; 

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

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right. 

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT (OVERTIME)

22. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-5 and 

17 above as if set out in full herein.

23. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the owner, 

director and/or a high-ranking officer of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual Defendant was 

an employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the 

Act [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], in that this defendant acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the 

Corporate Defendants in relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including Plaintiff 

and others similarly situated. The Individual Defendant had operational control of the Corporate 

Defendants, was involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendants, provided 

Plaintiff with his work schedule, and is jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

24. The Individual Defendant is and was, at all times relevant, a person in control of 

the Corporate Defendants’ financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendants to compensate 

(or not to compensate) its employees in accordance with the Act.

25. The Individual Defendant willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to receive 

overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains 

owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

26. 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 and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

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

Defendant on the basis of the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

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

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

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly;

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

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. 215 (a)(3)

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AGAINST THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS

27. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-5 

above as if set out in full herein.

28. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff his 

legally owed overtime wages, and PTO and flextime, and remain owing Plaintiff these wages as 

set forth above.

29. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(3) states that it shall be unlawful for any person “to discharge 

or in any 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 such proceeding . . . .”

30. On or about August 17, 2018, Plaintiff complained to his supervisor, Laura 

Spanaro, about unpaid overtime wages and PTO.

31. In or about November of 2019, Plaintiff complained to his supervisor, Andy Parker

(“Parker”), about unpaid overtime wages and PTO. Parker directed Plaintiff to contact Jessica

(ULN) in Defendants’ Human Resources Department.

32. In or about March of 2020, Plaintiff again complained to Parker about unpaid 

overtime wages and PTO, and threatened to seek legal help.

33. On or about April 1, 2020, Parker informed Plaintiff that he was terminated, 

allegedly because of Covid-19.

34. The motivating factor, which caused Plaintiff’s discharge as described above, was

the complaint seeking the payment of wages from the Corporate Defendants. In other words, 

Plaintiff would not have been fired but for his complaint about unpaid overtime wages.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 8 of 9
9

35. The Corporate Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff was in direct violation of 29 

U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) and, as a direct result, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter a judgment against the Corporate Defendants for all back wages from the date of 

discharge to the present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs; and

B. Reinstatement and promotion and injunctive relief prohibiting the Corporate 

Defendants from discriminating in the manner described above, emotional distress and 

humiliation, and pain and suffering, front wages, as well as other damages recoverable 

by law under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

Dated: June 17, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Tanesha W. Blye

Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0738158

R. Martin Saenz, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 640166

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2020 Page 9 of 9