UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

ODRAYONA WARD, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 

TINY TEETH OF TALLY, PLLC 

and ASTRID GONZALEZ, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, Odrayona Ward, sues Defendants, Tiny Teeth of Tally, 

PLLC, and Astrid Gonzalez (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and 

alleges: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, 

compensatory damages, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs 

under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). 

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 

2. Plaintiff is an individual who was employed by Defendants in 

Leon County, Florida. 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 8
2 

3. Defendant Tiny Teeth of Tally, PLLC (“Tiny Teeth”), is a Florida 

for-profit limited liability company doing business in Leon County, Florida, 

and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. Defendant Astrid Gonzalez (“Gonzalez) is the sole owner and 

operator of Tiny Teeth of Tally, PLLC, resides and does business in Leon 

County, Florida, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 

5. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because 

a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims occurred in Leon County, Florida. 

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 

7. Defendants are engaged in the business of dental care and 

services to the public. 

8. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Leon County, Florida, 

as an office manager and expanded functions dental assistant from 

October 31, 2017 to May 10, 2019, when she was fired by Defendants. 

9. Tiny Teeth is an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of the 

FLSA and, at all times material to this case, was an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce in that it has 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 8
3 

employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce and has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on 

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce 

throughout the nation, and it has an annual gross sales volume of sales 

made or business done that exceeds $500,000. 

10. Gonzalez is an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of the 

FLSA because, at all times material case, she exercised complete 

operational control over all of the day-to-day operations of Tiny Teeth and 

all aspects of the Plaintiff’s employment, including, but not limited to, her 

compensation. 

11. At all time during his employment, Plaintiff was an employee of 

the Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA and, while so employed, 

was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce in 

that she, among other things, regularly and recurrently engaged in 

interstate travel and communication in the performance of her duties and 

responsibilities as an employee of the Defendants. 

12. Up to the time she was fired, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 

hours in a workweek on numerous occasions while employed by the 

Defendants and was not paid at the overtime rate of one and one-half her 

regular rate of pay for such hours. 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 8
4 

13. On April 12, 2019, Gonzalez told Plaintiff that her lawyer said 

she had to pay overtime to her employees, including Plaintiff, and told 

Plaintiff she would get back to Plaintiff about the number of hours Plaintiff 

was owed. 

14. On April 26, Plaintiff provided with the number of hours she 

believed she was due as unpaid overtime. On April 30, Gonzalez told 

Plaintiff that she wanted Plaintiff to recalculate her hours because she said 

Plaintiff and others had been clocking out for lunch. Plaintiff confirmed she 

was not counting hours for lunch for which she was not clocked out. 

Gonzalez then said she thought Plaintiff may have more overtime hours 

and wanted Plaintiff to go back through her timesheets and recalculate it. 

Plaintiff did so and on May 7 sent Gonzalez her re-calculation. 

15. Two days later on May 9, Gonzalez called Plaintiff into her 

office and said she had major discrepancies with the time Plaintiff had 

calculated. Plaintiff asked Gonzalez what she thought Plaintiff was owed 

and Gonzalez said she didn’t know. Plaintiff became upset and asked 

Gonzalez for a leave of absence form like she’s seen Gonzalez give to 

another employee a week earlier. Gonzalez then became upset and told 

Plaintiff to go home and get her computer and documents and bring them 

back to the office and they would calculate the time together. Plaintiff told 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 8
5 

Gonzalez that it sounded like Gonzalez was going to pay Plaintiff whatever 

she wanted to pay her regardless of what Plaintiff said. Gonzalez said

didn’t believe she had to pay Plaintiff for time neither she nor Plaintiff knew 

Plaintiff had to be paid for. Plaintiff left work. 

16. Plaintiff returned to work the next morning May 10. Gonzalez 

greeted her by saying that she did not think Plaintiff was coming to work 

that day. Plaintiff told she was and had said so in an email to Gonzalez 

sent the previous evening. Gonzalez pulled the email up on her cell phone 

and began reading it. She asked Plaintiff several questions about her 

overtime calculations and was upset that Plaintiff had submitted text 

messages showing Gonzalez requesting her to work after hours. Gonzalez 

said she would not pay Plaintiff for the time worked at home because she 

wasn’t going to pay Plaintiff a “consultation fee.” Gonzalez finished reading 

the email and then was silent. Plaintiff began walking to her work station 

and Gonzalez told her that “this is the end,” that she was going to write her 

up for not returning back to work the previous day, and that Plaintiff could 

submit the hours she felt she was owed but that Gonzalez would go 

through ever hour “with a fine toothed comb.” Gonzalez then presented 

Plaintiff with a write-up terminating her employment. 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 8
6 

COUNT I 

Unpaid Overtime under 29 U.S.C. § 207 

17. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in 

paragraphs numbered 1-16 above. 

18. Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA prohibits an employer from 

employing its employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours, unless such 

employee receives compensation for all the hours she is employed in 

excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times her 

regular rate of pay. 

19. The Defendants have employed Plaintiff in excess of 40 hours 

in a workweek, did not pay her at a rate of one and one-half times her 

regular rate of pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a 

workweek, and thus have violated § 207 of the FLSA.

20. As a consequence of the Defendants’ violation of the FLSA, 

Plaintiff is entitled to one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all 

hours she worked in excess of 40 hours for each week she was employed 

by the Defendants. 

21. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover liquidated damages in an 

equal amount to the overtime she was not paid. 

22. The actions of Talcon complained of herein were willful within 

the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 8
7 

23. Plaintiff has had to retain counsel to enforce his rights under the 

FLSA and is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees and costs connected 

with this action. 

COUNT II 

Retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 215 

24. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in 

paragraphs numbered 1-16 above. 

25. Section 215(a)(3) prohibits an employer from retaliating or 

otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee has 

complained about the employer’s violation of his rights under the FLSA. 

26. Plaintiff complained to the Defendants regarding her right to be 

paid overtime. 

27. The Defendants fired Plaintiff because of her complaint. 

28. As a consequence of the Defendants’ violation of the FLSA, 

Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, including lost wages and 

damages for emotional distress and mental anguish, as well as liquidated 

damages in an equal amount. 

29. The actions of the Defendants complained of herein were willful 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

30. Plaintiff has had to retain counsel to enforce her rights under 

the FLSA and is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees and costs connected 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 7 of 8
8 

with this action. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray that this Court: 

A. Enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff unpaid overtime 

compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages; 

B. Enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages 

and an equal amount as liquidated damages; 

C. Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs; and 

D. Grant such other relief which this Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all claims so triable. 

s/John C. Davis 

 JOHN C. DAVIS 

 Florida. Bar No. 827770 

 Law Office of John C. Davis 

 623 Beard Street 

 Tallahassee, FL 32303 

 (850) 222-4770 

 (850) 222-3119 (fax) 

john@johndavislaw.net 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 4:20-cv-00081-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 8 of 8