IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

)

KEITH THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND )

On Behalf of Other Individuals Similarly )

Situated, Known and Unknown, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 12 CV 03590

)

) Judge Darrah 

NCO GROUP, INC., n/k/a EXPERT GLOBAL )

SOLUTIONS, INC., NCO CUSTOMER ) Jury Demanded

MANAGEMENT, INC., n/k/a APAC )

and NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., n/k/a )

NCO, )

Defendants. )

 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Keith Thompson (hereafter “Plaintiff” or “Thompson”), on behalf of 

himself and all other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown (hereafter sometimes 

“Plaintiffs”), through his undersigned attorneys, complains against Defendants NCO Group, Inc., 

n/k/a Expert Global Solutions, Inc. (“EGS”), NCO Customer Management, Inc., n/k/a APAC 

(“APAC”), and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. n/k/a NCO (“NCO”) (sometimes collectively 

“Defendants”), as follows:

 NATURE OF ACTION

1. This collective action lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

201, et seq. (“FLSA”), for one or more of the Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages due to 

Thompson and other similarly situated employees, and for retaliation against him in violation of 

§ 215(a)(3) of the FLSA. 
2

2. Specifically, one or more of the Defendants violated the FLSA by: (a) paying 

Thompson and other similarly situated “non-exempt” employees on a salary basis, thereby 

failing to pay them pay at a rate equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of pay 

(“overtime”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in individual workweeks; and (b) 

unlawfully firing Thompson in retaliation for his notifying and/or complaining to APAC about 

its failure to pay him overtime pay - as required by the FLSA.

3. Thompson also brings claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 Ill. Comp. 

Stat. 105/1, et seq. (“IMWL”), for one or more of the Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages 

as described in Counts III and IV below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of the FLSA 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction 

over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. The unlawful employment practices described herein were committed at APAC’s 

facility located in this judicial district, and elsewhere. Accordingly, venue is proper in the 

Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

PARTIES

6. Prior to or about July of 2011, Thompson was employed by Protocol Global 

Solutions, Inc. (“Protocol”) as a “non-exempt” supervisor in its Aurora, Illinois facility. In July 

of 2011, Protocol was acquired by defendant NCO Group, Inc., n/k/a EGS, and, thereafter, 

Thompson, as well as other similarly situated employees, became employees of Defendants and 

were improperly classified as “exempt” within the meaning of the FLSA. 

7. EGS is a world-wide provider of private business information and outsourcing 
3

services, including, inter alia, accounts receivable management, business cycle management, and 

contact center services for the energy, healthcare, government, pharmaceutical, and insurance 

markets. EGS is, and at all times relevant was, the holding company for two companies in the 

global business process outsourcing (“BPO”) industry, i.e. APAC and NCO. 

8. Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant, Defendants NCO Customer 

Services, Inc., n/k/a APAC, and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. n/k/a NCO, are divisions or 

subsidiaries of EGS. Furthermore, upon information and belief, at all times relevant, both APAC 

and NCO – at the direction of EGS – not only share data on a common database, but also operate 

as an organization(s) within, and/or at the direction and control of EGS with regard to 

standardized job classifications and exemptions for overtime pay required under the FLSA. 

9. APAC is the EGS brand in the Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”) BPO 

marketplace. NCO is the EGS brand in the Accounts Receivables Management (“ARM”) BPO 

marketplace. EGS, through both APAC and NCO, is therefore a fully scaled provider, global 

partner, and a “single-source” solution with a customized CRM and ARM service delivery 

platform. EGS has over 120 offices globally and does business, and has facilities located, in this 

judicial district.

10. At all times relevant, each of the Defendants was a covered “employer” within the 

meaning of the FLSA and IMWL. 

11. After repeatedly notifying and/or complaining to APAC about being 

misclassified - and despite his good work performance - APAC abruptly and unlawfully 

terminated Thompson from his employment on December 20, 2011, as more fully alleged herein.

12. Thompson, and all other individuals similarly situated – who, on information and 

belief, consist of all employees classified as exempt at the level of first-line supervisor or below 
4

in the Defendants’ job classification system, including, inter alia, first-line supervisors, job 

coaches, and/or team leaders (known and unknown) – have not been paid overtime wages as 

required under the FLSA and IMWL. As to the claims under the FLSA, similarly situated 

employees may opt-in to this case to pursue claims under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

CLAIMS

 COUNT I – FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

(Collective Action)

1. Thompson adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 12 above as Paragraph 1 of 

Count I as though fully set forth herein. 

2. Throughout his employment, from or about July of 2011 until or about December 20, 

2011, APAC misclassified Thompson as an exempt employee and paid him on a salary basis. 

Most recently, Thompson earned an annual salary of approximately $31,436.00 at APAC, or 

$604.54 per workweek, regardless of his actual hours worked.

3. At all times relevant, Thompson was routinely directed by APAC to work, and did 

work, in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.

4. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Thompson was entitled under the law to be paid at the 

overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.

5. APAC failed to pay overtime to Thompson for all weeks in which he worked in

excess of forty (40) hours.

6. APAC knew of its obligation to pay “non-exempt” employees overtime, or 

disregarded that fact, and intentionally chose not to pay Thompson accordingly.

7. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Thompson and others similarly situated are 

due back wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

8. APAC acted in bad faith in failing to properly compensate Thompson and members 
5

of the Plaintiff Class for the work they performed.

9. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action may be maintained by a plaintiff who has 

been damaged by Defendants’ failure to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

10. The Court previously granted preliminary certification to the class of employees 

employed by Defendant NCO Customer Services n/k/a APAC that included all NCO Customer 

Service employees classified as first-line supervisors and below who were classified by said 

Defendants as exempt from overtime pay requirements.

11. Pursuant to the Order of this Court, the original Defendants in this action were 

directed to provide notice to all putative class members employed or previously employed by 

APAC and the predecessor customer service providers acquired by NCO Group or NCO 

Customer Services, Inc. who were employed by Defendants or the employees acquired by said 

Defendants within three years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit through the present of 

their right to join in the original FLSA action brought by Plaintiff Thompson on their behalf.

12. Following the preliminary certification and notice referred to in the preceding 

paragraphs, the parties have stipulated to add and give notice to all employees at the level of 

first-line supervisor and below who were employed by NCO Financial Services, Inc. n/k/a NCO, 

who were or are classified as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements and who have a position 

of first-line supervisor, job coach, team leader or similar classification and who worked for NCO 

Financial Services, Inc. (“NCO-FS”), or its predecessor companies and acquisitions within three 

years prior to the commencement of this action. (A copy of the stipulation filed with the Court 

on February 19, 2014, and agreeing to add NCO-FS as a defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A” and incorporated herein.)

13. In order for putative class members employed by NCO—FS as described in the 
6

preceding paragraph who are similarly situated to Thompson as more fully described above, to 

become fully aware of their rights to join this cause of action, the parties also stipulated to the 

method by which proper notice shall be provided to all similarly situated individuals employed 

by NCO—FS, additional time for those individuals to file consent forms with this Court as 

provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and that the rights of the NCO-FS opt-ins shall relate back to the 

date this lawsuit was originally filed 

14. In order to bring this cause of action, it has been necessary for Thompson, the named 

Plaintiff, and will become necessary for all similarly situated individuals who “opt-in” to this 

action, to employ attorneys to secure any judgment due them with regard to back compensation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Keith A. Thompson, on behalf of himself and all other 

individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an 

order against one or more of the Defendants, as follows:

(A) Awarding judgment for back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime 

compensation for up to three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, or any other 

maximum period, according to the applicable statute of limitations for willful violations of the 

FLSA;

(B) Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime 

compensation found due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

(C) Awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the amount of unpaid overtime 

compensation found due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

(D) Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action; and 

(E) Entering an injunction precluding Defendants, or any of them, from violating the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and 
7

(F) Ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II - FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(Individual Action - Retaliation in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)) 

1. Thompson adopts and realleges Paragraph 1 of Count I as Paragraph 1 of Count II as 

though fully set forth herein.

2. 29 U.S.C § 215(a)(3) makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge, or in any 

other way discriminate against, any employee because such employee has, inter alia, notified or 

made any complaint to an employer about an unfair labor practice under the FLSA, including its 

failure or refusal to pay overtime compensation to eligible employees. 

3. Because of Thompson’s legally protected conduct, as alleged above, APAC

unlawfully retaliated against him, including but not limited to suspending him on or about 

December 14, 2011, and then terminating his employment on or about December 20, 2011. 

4. As a direct and proximate result of APAC’s misconduct, as alleged, Plaintiff has 

lost, and will continue to lose, substantial income and employment benefits, has suffered related 

anxiety, humiliation, emotional distress, and has sustained other damages. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Keith A. Thompson, respectfully requests that this Court 

enter an order against one or more of the Defendants, as follows:

(A) Declare that APAC has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by retaliating against 

him;

(B) Award him all lost past compensation and benefits, and lost interest thereon;

(C) Award him the value of all lost compensation and benefits that he will

lose in the future as a result of APAC’s misconduct;

(D) In the alternative to paragraph (C), reinstate him to his proper position with
8

appropriate promotions, benefits and seniority and otherwise make him whole;

(E) Award him all authorized compensatory, punitive and/or liquidated

damages for retaliation under the FLSA;

(F) Award him reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; and

(G) Award him such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. 

COUNT III – ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW 

(Class Action)

1. Plaintiff and class members adopt and reallege Paragraph 1 of Count I as Paragraph 1 

of Count III as though fully set forth herein.

2. The matters set forth in this Count arise from said violations of the overtime 

compensation provision of the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/4(a)(1). At all times relevant 

herein, Defendants were each an “employer” as defined in the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 

105/3(c).

3. Thompson and the class members were employees of one or more of the Defendants

who were not paid proper overtime wages under the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq., 

during their employment, and bring this Count pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/12(a).

4. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 23, because the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of 

the representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, the representative party 

will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class, and a class action is superior to other 

methods of resolution for this action.
9

5. The class members identified above are so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable. The exact number of the class is unknown, but may be determined from 

records maintained by Defendants. 

6. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to all of 

the members of the class including, but not limited to, whether Defendants, or any of them, has 

misclassified – and/or continues to misclassify – various other employees at their various 

facilities and offices, whether Defendants, or any of them, have violated, and continue to violate, 

the IMWL, and by not paying Thompson and said class members the sums that are due and 

owing.

7. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to this class action, including 

denial that their actions violated the law.

8. Thompson, the Named Plaintiff, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class, and has retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of complex and 

class action litigation.

9. Thompson’s claims are also typical of the claims of the class as he has the same 

interests and has suffered from the same injury as the class members. Thompson, the Named 

Plaintiff, and the class he seeks to represent are/were not paid for all of their time worked 

because of Defendant(s)’ alleged employee misclassification(s).

10. Upon information and belief, no member of the class has an interest in 

individually controlling the prosecution of his/her claims, especially in light of the relatively 

small value of each claim and the difficulties involved in bringing individual litigation against 

any Defendant(s). However, if any such class member should become known, he or she can “opt 
10

out” of this action upon receipt of the class action notice pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

11. Thompson and his counsel are unaware of any other litigation concerning this 

controversy commenced by or for other class members.

12. Litigation should be concentrated in this forum because many of the anticipated 

class members are or were employed at APAC’s Aurora, Illinois facility, which is located within 

this judicial district.

13. The Court has the resources and abilities to effectively manage this class action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Keith A. Thompson, on behalf of himself and all other

individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an 

order against one or more of the Defendants, as follows:

(A) Awarding judgment for back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime 

compensation preceding the filing of this Complaint, according to the applicable statute of 

limitations for willful violations of the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq.;

(B) Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime 

compensation found due pursuant to IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq.;

(C) Awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the amount of unpaid overtime 

compensation due under the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq.;

(D) Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action, 820 

Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq.; and 

(E) Entering an injunction precluding Defendants, or any of them, from violating the 

IMWL; and 

(F) Ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
11

COUNT IV – ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW 

(Individual Action)

1. Plaintiff, Thompson, adopts and realleges Paragraph 1 of Count I as Paragraph 1 of 

Count IV as though fully set forth herein.

2. At all times relevant herein, Thompson was employed by APAC as an “employee” 

within the meaning of the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/3(d).

3. Pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/4(a), for all workweeks during which Thompson 

worked for APAC in excess of forty (40) hours, he was entitled to be compensated at one and 

one-half times his normal hourly rate of pay for such hours.

4. APAC violated the maximum hours provision of the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 

105/4(a) by failing to compensate Thompson for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours 

per workweek at a rate equal to one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.

5. Pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/12(a), Thompson is entitled to recover from one 

or more Defendants all unpaid wages earned prior to the filing of this Complaint, plus statutory 

damages in the amount of two percent (2%) per month of the amount of underpayments.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Keith A. Thompson, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

an Order against one or more of the Defendants, as follows:

(A) Awarding judgment in the amount of back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid 

overtime compensation due for violations of the IMWL;

(B) Awarding prejudgment interest on the back wages in accordance with 815 Ill. Comp. 

Stat. 205/2;

(C) Awarding statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 

105/12(a);

(D) Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in this action; and 
12

(E) Ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

KEITH A. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff

By: /s/ Daniel J. Voelker

One of His Attorneys 

Daniel J. Voelker, Esq.

Jeffrey L. Dorman, Esq.

Tricia L. Putzy, Esq.

VOELKER LITIGATION GROUP

311 W. Superior Street, Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60654

T: (312) 870-5430

F: (312) 870-5431

dvoelker@voelkerlitigationgroup.com

jdorman@voelkerlitigationgroup.com

tputzy@voelkerlitigationgroup.com

Randall B. Gold, Esq.

Michael R. Fox, Esq.

FOX & FOX, S.C.

221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2900

Chicago, Illinois 60601

T: 847-796-5198

F: 312-641-0781 

rgoldlaw@aol.com

mfox@foxquick.com

Dated: April 24, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel J. Voelker, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 24th day of April, 2014, I 

electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System 

for filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

Registrants:

David Israel, Esq.

Kevin G. Barreca, Esq.

Justin Harris Homes, Esq.

Cara M. Schiffman, Esq.

James Kevin Schultz, Esq.

SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLP

3850 N. Causeway Blvd.

New Orleans, Louisiana 70002

John Anthony Ybarra, Esq.

Stephanie Seay Kelly, Esq.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000

Chicago, Illinois 60654

/s/ Daniel J. Voelker