1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GASPETROL ENERGY 3 LLC d/b/a SUNOCO GAS 

STATION, a Florida Limited Liability Company and

SAMUEL GONZALEZ, an individual

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE (“Plaintiff” or “Jean Baptiste”), by and through 

her undersigned attorney, hereby files this Complaint against Defendants GASPETROL

ENERGY 3 LLC d/b/a SUNOCO GAS STATION and SAMUEL GONZALEZ (“Gaspetrol 

Energy,” “Gonzalez” and collectively “Defendants”), and says:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought against Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. 

(hereinafter the “Fair Labor Standards Act”, the “FLSA” or the “Act”).

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Plaintiff was

employed by Defendants in this District; because Defendants, at all material times, conducted 

and continue to conduct business in the Southern District of Florida; because the acts that give 

rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Florida; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b) and (c); and because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction herein.

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

4. All conditions precedent to this action have been performed or waived.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach County. During all times relevant to this 

Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Cashier. Plaintiff was therefore an 

employee as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e). 

6. Defendant Gaspetrol Energy is a Florida Limited Liability Company organized 

and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Florida and registered to do business within 

Florida. Gaspetrol Energy has its principal place of business in North Palm Beach, Florida.

Defendant Gaspetrol Energy has, at all times material hereto, conducted substantial and 

continuous business within the Southern District of Florida, and is subject to the laws of the 

United States and the State of Florida. 

7. Gaspetrol Energy does business as Sunoco Gas Station, together with a 

convenience store attached to the station. 

8. Defendant Gonzalez owned and operated Defendant Gaspetrol Energy at all times 

material hereto and, upon information and belief, is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 

9. Defendant Gonzalez had operational control of significant aspects of Gaspetrol 

Energy’s day to day functions, including employment practices and compensation of employees, 

and was responsible for the supervision and control of Plaintiff and the work Plaintiff performed.

10. Defendant Gonzalez also had the power to hire and fire employees of Gaspetrol 

Energy, set their wages, retain time and/or wage records, and otherwise control the terms of the 

employment. Defendant Gonzalez also had the power to stop any illegal pay practices that 

harmed Plaintiff.

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

11. Defendant Gonzalez acted and acts directly in the interests of Gaspetrol Energy in 

relation to its employees and, thus, Defendant Gonzalez was and is an employer within the 

meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA. 

12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were covered employers under the 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1) in that they had employees engaged in commerce or in the production 

of goods for commerce or that they had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on 

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.

13. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have had two (2) or more 

employees who have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials that 

have been moved in or produced for commerce and therefore have employees subject to the 

provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. 

14. Defendants, upon knowledge and belief, have gross revenue which exceeds 

$500,000 for each of the past three (3) years and utilize goods in the flow of commerce across 

state lines. 

15. Plaintiff was an employee covered by the FLSA in that she was employed by 

Defendants as a cashier, for which she constantly handled goods and materials that were 

transported through state lines.

16. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was directly and 

regularly engaged in interstate commerce and therefore an “employee” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 

203(e).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from December 2019 through on or about June 8, 

2020, during which Plaintiff was compensated at an hourly rate of $10.00. 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

18. Plaintiff was normally assigned two shift schedules, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. or from 

2 p.m. to 10 p.m.

19. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants regularly assigned 

Plaintiff to work one shift for six days a week and would provide Plaintiff with said schedule in 

advance.

20. Defendants sometimes required Plaintiff to finish a double shift in addition to the 

scheduled shift when Plaintiff was already on the job, without advance notice. 

21. For some other weeks Defendants verbally required Plaintiff to work seven days 

for the coming week, without providing any schedule. 

22. Plaintiff was almost always required to stay for another fifteen (15) to thirty (30) 

minutes after the scheduled time to wrap up each shift.

23. During the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked 

an average of approximately fifty (50) to sixty (60) hours per week but Plaintiff received only 

straight time. 

24. Plaintiff received compensation every two weeks, where Defendants would pay 

Plaintiff eighty (80) hours worked with check, together with a pay stub, Defendants would pay 

Plaintiff for the remaining hours worked in cash, but Defendants would not compensate Plaintiff 

at all for the additional time worked to wrap up each shift after the scheduled time. 

25. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants and was subject to the payroll 

practices and procedures set forth hereinafter.

26. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more 

workweeks within three years of the filing of this Complaint. 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

27. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 201 – 219 in that Plaintiff performed services for Defendants for which no provision was 

made to properly pay overtime for those hours worked over forty (40) in a work-week. 

28. Defendants and their representatives knew that Plaintiff was working overtime, 

and that Federal law requires employees to be compensated at time and one-half per hour for 

overtime pay.

29. In the course of her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked the number of

hours required of her, but was not properly paid time and one-half for all hours worked in excess 

of forty (40) hours during a workweek.

30. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on her behalf

and has agreed to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

31. Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if she is the 

prevailing party in this action.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME

32. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-aver paragraphs 1 – 31 as fully set forth herein.

33. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants have willfully violated 

the provisions of §7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. §207] by employing employees engaged in commerce 

for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours without compensating them for all hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one half times her regular rate.

34. During the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff worked an average of 

approximately fifty (50) to sixty (60) hours per week. 

35. Plaintiff was only paid straight time and never overtime.

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

36. Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provision of the FLSA pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 213(a), in that she was neither a bona fide executive, administrative, nor professional 

employee. 

37. Defendants have knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at time and

one half of her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week during

the relevant time period. 

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

Plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

39. As a result of Defendants’ willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to

liquidated damages.

40. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent her in this action, and 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs incurred in this action from Defendants.

WHEREFORE, for workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this Complaint, 

Plaintiff ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE demands judgment for:

a. Overtime payment, wages, salary, lost benefits, and any other 

compensation denied or lost to Plaintiff by reason of Defendant’s violation 

of the FLSA.

b. Interest on the amount found due;

c. Liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b);

d. Costs associated with this action together with reasonable attorney’s fees 

incurred in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b); and

e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues 

contained herein so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: August 18, 2020.

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112

Plantation, Florida 33324

(954) 914-7890 (Telephone)

(855) 423-5298 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Charles Eiss

CHARLES M. EISS, Esq.

Fla. Bar #612073

chuck@icelawfirm.com

TIEXIN YANG, Esq.

Fla. Bar #1010651

tiexin@icelawfirm.com

Case 9:20-cv-81337-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 7 of 7