UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

ZACHARY BERNIER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GYROMANIA 4, LLC, a Florida

limited liability company, and

PANAGIOTIS ALEXOPOULOS,

individually,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ZACHARY BERNIER (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), files his Complaint for Damages and Demand for 

Jury Trial against Defendants GYROMANIA 4, LLC (“GYRO 4”), and PANAGIOTIS 

ALEXOPOULOS (“ALEXOPOULOS”), and in support alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of federal overtime compensation during 

the course of his employment. This is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-216, to recover all wages owed to Plaintiff during 

the course of his employment. 

PARTIES

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

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

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

3. During all times material hereto, Defendant, GYRO 4, was a Florida limited liability 

company transacting business within Hollywood, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court. GYRO 4’s principal location is listed at 1537 Hollywood Blvd. 

Hollywood, Florida 33020.

4. During all times material hereto, Defendant ALEXOPOULOS, was a resident of the 

Southern District of Florida, over the age of 18 years, and was an owner and operator of 

GYRO 4, and vested with ultimate control and decision-making authority over the 

Corporate Defendant’s hiring, firing, and pay practices.

5. During all times material hereto, Defendant, ALEXOPOULOS, was the registered agent 

of GYRO 4. 

6. During all times material hereto, Defendant, ALEXOPOULOS, was the managing member 

of GYRO 4. 

7. During all times material hereto, Defendant, ALEXOPOULOS controlled the day to day 

operations of GYRO 4. 

8. Defendant, GYRO 4 was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), during all 

times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

9. Defendant, ALEXOPOULOS, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 

during all times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Defendants hired Plaintiff to work in store locations throughout South Florida and failed 

to properly compensate Plaintiff for performing work within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court. 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

11. Defendant GYRO 4 is headquartered and regularly transacts business in Hollywood, 

Florida, Coral Springs, Florida, Royal Palm Beach, Florida, and Boca Raton, Florida, and 

jurisdiction is therefore proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 

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

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant, GYRO 4, operatesrestaurants that specialize in providing contemporary GreekMediterranean fast-casual food to the South Florida community.

14. Defendant currently operates locations in Coral Springs, Florida, Boca Raton, Florida, and 

Royal Palm Beach, Florida – all of which are located in the Southern District of Florida. 

15. In 2011, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a manager but paid Plaintiff on an hourly 

basis which resulted in Plaintiff’s compensation fluctuating from week to week based on 

the number of hours he actually worked.

FLSA COVERAGE

16. Defendant, GYRO 4, is covered under the FLSA through enterprise coverage, as GYRO 4 

was engaged in interstate commerce during all pertinent times in which Plaintiff was 

employed. More specifically, GYRO 4 was engaged in interstate commerce by virtue of 

the fact that its business activities involved those to which the FLSA applies. Defendant, 

GYRO 4’s business and Plaintiffs’ work for GYRO 4 affected interstate commerce because 

the materials and goods that Plaintiff used on a constant and/or continuous basis moved 

through interstate commerce prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of the same. 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

17. During his employment with Defendant, GYRO 4, Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated 

employees, handled and worked with various goods and/or materials that have moved 

through interstate commerce, including, but not limited to: wine, beer, coffee, frappe, soda, 

pita bread, hummus, lamb, beef, chicken, fish, pork, beans, cheese, nuts, salt, pepper, olive 

oil, honey, forks, spoons, knives, napkins, ovens, freezers, refrigerators, microwaves,

skillets, skewers, washing equipment, graters, whisks, pans, tins, pastry brushes, ladles,

spatulas, tongs, and other restaurant related items.

18. Defendant, GYRO 4, also regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the relevant 

time period, who handled the same or similar goods as those goods and materials handled 

by Plaintiff, or used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, thus making 

Defendant, GYRO 4’s business an enterprise covered by the FLSA. 

19. Defendant, GYRO 4, grossed or did business in excess of $500,000.00 per year in the years 

2017, 2018, 2019 and is expected to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in 2020.

INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER LIABILITY

20. Defendant, ALEXOPOULOS, is an individual who is a resident of the State of Florida.

21. During the relevant time period, ALEXOPOULOS was an authorized managing member 

of GYRO 4 and controlled the operations of GYRO 4.

22. During the relevant time period, ALEXOPOULOUS was an employer of Plaintiff as that 

term is defined by the FLSA insofar as he had complete control of GYRO 4, made day to 

day decisions, established pay policies and practices for the Corporate Defendant, had 

direct control of Plaintiff, had hiring and firing authority, and set Plaintiff’s schedules, and 

set Plaintiff’s rate of pay.

FLSA VIOLATIONS 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

23. During Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendants, GYRO 4, and ALEXOPOULOS, assigned 

Plaintiff to work multiple workweeks in which Defendants failed and refused to 

compensate Plaintiff in accordance with the overtime provisions under federal law. 

24. Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate when he started working for Defendants was $9.00 per hour.

25. In 2015, Defendants began to pay Plaintiff a regular hourly rate of $15.00 per hour. 

26. During the three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, the Defendants required 

Plaintiff to work an average of sixty to eighty (60-80) hours per workweek.

27. During the three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, the Defendants employed 

the Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt hourly employee. 

28. Defendants regularly assigned Plaintiff’s schedule, controlled the scope of work Plaintiff 

needed to perform, specifically instructed Plaintiff what to do on job sites, and specifically 

instructed Plaintiff when he had to arrive at job sites and when he could leave job sites. 

29. Defendants were also collectively responsible for creating and implementing the pay policy 

that is at issue in this case. 

30. During Plaintiff’s employment period, he regularly worked between sixty (60) and eighty 

(80) hours per week.

31. Because Plaintiff was a non-exempt hourly employee, Defendants were required to pay 

Plaintiff 1.5 times Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate for all hours Plaintiff worked over 40 in a 

workweek. 

32. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the rate of time-and-a-half his regular hourly 

rate for work he performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week. 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

33. Defendants’ actions were intentional and/or willful and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an 

additional amount of liquidated (double) damages for minimum wages and overtime wages 

owed.

34. During Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendants failed to maintain adequate and 

contemporaneous time records for Plaintiff as required by the FLSA. 

35. Defendants were either recklessly indifferent as to the overtime requirements under federal 

law, or, in the alternative, intentionally violated federal law so that the Defendants could 

avoid having to pay Plaintiff his lawful (and hard-earned) wages. Plaintiff is therefore 

entitled to liquidated (double) damages under the FLSA. 

36. Based upon Defendants’ intentional and/or willful violations of the FLSA, the three (3) 

year statute of limitations applies instead of the two (2) year statute of limitations. 

37. As a result of the above violations of federal law, Plaintiff has had to retain the undersigned 

counsel to prosecute these claims and is therefore entitled to an award of reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs under the FLSA 

COUNT I – FEDERAL OVERTIME LAW VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(against All Defendants)

38. Plaintiff re-avers and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as though fully set forth 

herein.

39. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants for which he should have received overtime 

compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half for work in excess of forty (40) per week.

40. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff these overtime rates. 

41. Plaintiff worked approximately sixty (60) to eighty (80) hours per week during his 

employment period with Defendants. 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

42. Defendants’ failure to comply with the federal overtime provisions of the FLSA was 

intentional and/or willful. 

43. To date, Defendants have not properly paid Plaintiff all of his overtime as required by the 

FLSA.

44. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to remedy their violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to recover unliquidated damages, liquidated damages, court costs and reasonable 

attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZACHARY BERNIER, demands judgment against Defendants, 

GYROMANIA 4, LLC, and PANAGIOTIS ALEXOPOULOS, individually, and respectfully 

requests that he be awarded the following relief: (a) unliquidated damages to be paid by the 

Defendants jointly and severally; (b) liquidated damages to be paid by the Defendants jointly and 

severally; (c) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by the Defendants jointly and 

severally; and any and all such further relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the 

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ZACHARY BERNIER, hereby requests and demands a trial by jury on all 

appropriate claims. 

Dated this 6th of August 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on this 6th day 

of August, 2020. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 0:20-cv-61599-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 8 of 8