Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WIDALYS SANTIAGO

MIRANDA,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.:

v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MHM HEALTH 

PROFESSIONALS, LLC,

d/b/a CENTURION 

PROFESSIONALS

Defendant.

______________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, WIDALYS SANTIAGO MIRANDA, by and through her

undersigned attorney, hereby brings this action against Defendant, 

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC, d/b/a CENTURION 

PROFESSIONALS, and hereby seeks to recover compensation, 

liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, pursuant to the 

provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

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

I. OVERVIEW-SUMMARY

1.1 This is an action to recover straight-time wages and 

overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

1.2 Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a physician and has 

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 8
Page 2

been so employed since June 2019. 

1.3 Plaintiff is an hourly wage earner and Defendant pays

Plaintiff a stipulated hourly rate for all time that Plaintiff works.

1.4 Plaintiff is not a salaried exempt employee and Defendant

has never characterized or treated Plaintiff as such.

1.5 Since June 2019, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff for 

all time (both straight time and overtime) that Plaintiff has worked 

for Defendant. 

1.6 Defendant continues to fail to properly pay Plaintiff for all 

time (both straight time and overtime) that Plaintiff works for 

Defendant.

II. PARTIES

2.1 Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Santa Rosa 

County, Florida. 

2.2 Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company that 

provides healthcare services to prisons throughout the United States, 

including in the State of Florida.

III. JURISDICTION & VENUE

3.1 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C §§ 206, 207, and 216(b), which provides 

that suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act "may be maintained 

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 8
Page 3

against any employer ... in any Federal or State court of competent 

jurisdiction."

3.2 This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

3.3 Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b) as the Defendant resides in and does business within this 

District. In addition, a substantial part of the events and omissions 

giving rise to the claims pleaded in this Complaint occurred within 

this District.

IV. COVERAGE

4.1 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant was an 

“employer” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

4.2 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant was an 

“enterprise” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

4.3 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant was an 

“enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1),

in that said enterprise had employees engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or 

otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or 

produced for commerce by any person, or in any closely related 

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 3 of 8
Page 4

process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof, 

and in that said enterprise has had, and has, an annual gross volume 

of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00. During 

the respective periods of Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant, 

Plaintiff provided services to and on behalf of Defendant that involved 

interstate commerce. In performing the operations hereinabove 

described, Plaintiff was engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for commerce within the meaning of §§ 203(b), 203(i), 203(j), 

206(a), and 207(a) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 203(i), 203(j), 

206(a), 207(a). 

4.4 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was an

employee who was engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207.

V. FACTS

5.1 In June 2019, Defendant offered to hire Plaintiff as a 

physician providing medical services for Defendant’s client, the 

Florida Department of Corrections. A copy of Defendant’s 

employment offer letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A.”

5.2 Defendant offered to pay Plaintiff an hourly wage of 

$89.00.

5.3 Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer of employment and 

began working for Defendant on June 24, 2019.

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 4 of 8
Page 5

5.4 Plaintiff worked, and continues to work, at the Santa Rosa 

Correctional Institution in Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida.

5.5 Since June 2019, Defendant has paid Plaintiff strictly on 

an hourly basis: i.e., Defendant has paid, and continues to pay, 

Plaintiff only for the hours that Plaintiff has actually worked (plus

any applicable “PDO” pay and any holiday pay). Such payment 

arrangement continues to date.

5.6 Nearly every workweek since June 2019, and continuing 

to date, Plaintiff has worked more than 40 hours.

5.7 Defendant has not paid Plaintiff any overtime.

5.8 For each shift that Plaintiff has worked since June 2019, 

Defendant has automatically deducted thirty (30) minutes from 

Plaintiff’s total compensable time for that day. This practice 

continues to date.

5.9 Said thirty-minute deduction is a purported daily “meal 

break.”

5.10 However, from the time that Plaintiff clocked in until the 

time that she clocked out each day that she has worked for 

Defendant, Plaintiff has not stopped working to eat a meal. Whenever

Plaintiff has eaten a meal at work, she has done so while also 

performing other work-related tasks. 

5.11 Plaintiff’s daily workload is such that she is unable to stop 

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 5 of 8
Page 6

working in order to take a thirty-minute meal break. If Plaintiff were 

to actually stop working for thirty minutes of uninterrupted mealtime

each day, free from all job-related duties, she would not be able to

perform all tasks and duties that Defendant expects and requires her 

to perform.

5.12 Defendant made no effort to provide Plaintiff thirty

minutes of uninterrupted mealtime each day, free from all job-related 

duties, and Defendant made no effort to ensure that Plaintiff actually 

took such a break.

5.13 Defendant was, and is, aware that Plaintiff regularly ate 

her daily meals while she worked.

VI. CLAIM: VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

6.1 Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the 

meaning of the FLSA.

6.2 Defendant is, and was at all times relevant to the 

allegations herein, an employer and an enterprise engaged in 

interstate commerce and is subject to the FLSA.

6.3 Plaintiff was, and is, entitled to be paid the stipulated 

hourly rate for any and all time that she has worked while employed 

by Defendant, including any time that Plaintiff has worked while 

simultaneously eating a meal.

6.4 Additionally, Plaintiff is also entitled to be paid overtime 

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 6 of 8
Page 7

at 1.5 times the stipulated hourly rate for any and all time that 

Plaintiff worked/works beyond forty hours in a workweek.

6.5 Defendant’s non-payment of Plaintiff—vis-à-vis its 

purported meal deduction—was knowing, willful, or in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and actions.

6.6 Defendant’s non-payment of overtime to Plaintiff—for all 

time worked beyond forty hours in any workweek—was knowing, 

willful, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and actions.

6.7 Plaintiff has been required to retain the undersigned 

attorney and is required to pay said attorney a reasonable fee for his 

services. Plaintiff is entitled to recover such attorneys' fees pursuant 

to the FLSA.

6.8 As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has 

been deprived of compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, 

and she is entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, 

attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter 

judgment on this Complaint in her favor and:

A. Enter final judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant

on the basis of Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act;

B. Enter judgment for Plaintiff declaring that Defendant

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 7 of 8
Page 8

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and enjoining 

Defendant from: (i) automatically deducting 30-minute 

meal breaks in the future, unless Plaintiff is provided with 

30 minutes of uninterrupted time, free from performing 

any work-related duties or services; and (ii) allowing 

Plaintiff to work more than forty hours per workweek

without paying her overtime;

C. Award Plaintiff actual and compensatory damages in the 

amount shown to be due for unpaid wages;

D. Award prejudgment interest on all unpaid wages;

E. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in liquidated damages;

F. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

G. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems

equitable and just.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS

John B. Trawick

John B. Trawick, PLLC

5101 N. 12th Avenue

Pensacola, FL 32503

850-476-0495 (P)

850-857-7800 (F)

John@JBTrawicklaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:20-cv-05734-MCR-HTC Document 2 Filed 08/20/20 Page 8 of 8