UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JANEISHA PARKS and 

JERVACHIA ART’ISE PARKS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 

HEALING BY NATURE SENIOR 

CARE, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company and CAROL G. 

RILEY-THOMPSON, 

Individually,

Defendants. /

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, JANEISHA PARKS (“PARKS”) and JERVACHIA ART’ISE 

PARKS (“J.PARKS”) (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through the 

undersigned attorney, sues the Defendants, HEALING BY NATURE SENIOR 

CARE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company (“HEALING”) and CAROL G. 

RILEY-THOMPSON (“RILEY”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and 

allege:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants and bring this action for 

unpaid minimum wages and proper overtime compensation, liquidated damages, 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 10
and all other applicable relief pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X § 24, and the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“FLSA”). 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 and the FLSA, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367.

3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were a resident of Leon County, 

Florida.

4. Defendants conduct business in, among others, Leon County, Florida, 

therefore venue is proper in the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (c).

PARTIES

5. Defendant, HEALING, is a Florida Limited Liability Company that 

operates and conducts business in Leon County, Florida and is therefore, within the 

jurisdiction of this Court. 

6. At all times relevant to this action, RILEY was an individual resident 

of the State of Florida, who owned and operated HEALING, and who regularly 

exercised the authority to: (a) hire and fire employees of HEALING; (b) determine 

the work schedules for the employees of HEALING, and (c) control the finances 

and operations of HEALING. By virtue of having regularly exercised that 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 10
authority on behalf of HEALING, RILEY is/was an employer as defined 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201, et seq.

COVERAGE

7. At all material times, Defendants were an enterprise covered by the 

FLSA, and as

defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203 (s).

8. At all material times, Defendants were an employer as defined by 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d).

9. At all material times, Defendants had an annual gross volume of sales 

made or business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the 

retail level which are separately stated).

10. At all times material, Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 

Section 203(s)(1) of the FLSA, in that the company had two or more employees:

a. Engaged in commerce; or 

b. Engaged in the production of goods for commerce; or

c. Handling, selling or working on goods or materials that have been 

moved in or produced for commerce. (i.e. wheelchairs, 

medications, computers, and/or office supplies).

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 10
11. Therefore, Defendants are an enterprise covered by the FLSA, and as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(r) and 203(s). 

12. In addition, during Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants employed at 

least two employees who were engaged in interstate commerce and/or handled 

goods, materials and supplies which travelled in interstate commerce, including, 

but not limited to, medical supplies and diagnostic testing supplies which were 

used to run the business and care for the patients at home.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendants, HEALING and RILEY, are a company classified as a 

caregiving

company.

14. Defendants were an “employer” of Plaintiffs within the meaning of 

the FLSA.

15. Plaintiffs were an “employee” of Defendants within the meaning of 

the FLSA. 

16. Plaintiff, PARKS earned an hourly rate of up to $10.00 per hour, in 

exchange for 

work performed for Defendants from on or around May 2018 through May 2019. 

17. Plaintiff, J.PARKS earned an hourly rate of up to $10.00 per hour, in 

exchange 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 10
for work performed for Defendants from on or around January 2019 through June 

2019. 

18. Plaintiff, PARKS regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

week from 

approximately May 2018 and throughout her employment with Defendant.

19. Plaintiff, J.PARKS regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

week from 

approximately January 2019 and throughout her employment with Defendant.

20. Plaintiffs’ gross weekly wages and salary combined, resulted in wages 

that fell 

below the statutory minimum wage during one or more workweeks contrary to 

§206(a) of the FLSA.

21. Despite working more than forty (40) hours per week during one or 

more work weeks, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at a 

rate of time and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty 

(40) in a workweek, contrary to §207(a) of the FLSA. 

22. Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried 

out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay proper overtime and minimum 

wage compensation to Plaintiff.

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 10
23. Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon any of the 

following in formulating its pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

201, et seq., (c) Department of Labor Wage & Hour Opinion Letters or (d) the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

24. Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff in 

accordance with the law.

25. Defendants failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by 

law.

26. Defendants failed to post informational posters as required by law 

advising its employees of their rights under the FLSA.

COUNT I – RECOVERY OF MINIMUM WAGES (FEDERAL)

27. All preceding paragraphs are fully re-alleged and incorporated herein. 

28. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid the full minimum wage for all hours 

worked 

during their employment with Defendants.

29. Plaintiff is entitled to receive the applicable statutory Florida minimum 

wage rate for all hours worked during her employment with Defendants pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. 778.5. 

30. Defendants chose to not pay Plaintiffs the proper and allowable 

minimum wage and chose not to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked. 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 10
31. As a result of these common policies, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive 

the difference between the full applicable statutory minimum wage and the hourly 

wage actually paid to them.

32. Defendants failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by 

law.

33. Defendants failed to post informational posters as required by law 

advising its employees of their rights under the FLSA.

34. Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon any of the 

following in formulating its pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

201, et seq., (c) Department of Labor Wage & Hour Opinion Letters or (d) the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

35. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of 

the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 255(a). 

36. As a result of Defendants’ intentional, willful and unlawful acts in 

refusing to pay Plaintiff her proper minimum wages during one or more 

workweeks, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, plus incurring reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs.

37. As a result of Defendants’ willful violation of the FLSA, Plaintiffs are

entitled to liquidated damages.

38. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 10
costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in 

their favor against Defendants;

a. Awarding Plaintiffs their unpaid minimum wages as allowable under 

the FLSA statute of limitations period;

b. Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum 

wage award, or alternatively, awarding pre-judgment interest; 

c. Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and expenses of the 

litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b); and

d. Ordering any other further relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II - RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION

39. All preceding paragraphs are fully re-alleged and incorporated herein. 

40. Plaintiffs are/were entitled to be paid time and one-half their regular 

rate of pay 

for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per work week. 

28. During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs were not paid for 

all time worked as described above which resulted in Plaintiffs not being paid 

proper overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked in violation of the 

FLSA. 

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 10
29. As a result of Defendants’ intentional, willful and unlawful acts in 

refusing to overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per 

work week in one or more work weeks, Plaintiffs have suffered damages plus 

incurring reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

51. Defendants did not have a good faith basis for its failure to pay 

Plaintiffs overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per 

work week. 

52. As result of Defendants’ willful violation of the FLSA, Plaintiffs are 

entitled to liquidated damages. 

53. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for the 

payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for the 

hours worked by them for which Defendants did not properly compensate them, 

liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, 

and any and all further relief that this Court determines to be just and appropriate.

Dated: April 17, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory R. Schmitz

GREGORY R. SCHMITZ, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 0094694

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 10
Orlando, Florida 32801

Telephone: (407) 204-2170

Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 

E-mail: gschmitz@forthepeople.com

mbarreiro@forthepeople.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:20-cv-00198-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 10