000002/01409485_1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

JENNIFER FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DMO COLLABORATIVE INC.,

a Florida corporation, and 

DAVID OLSON individually,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JENNIFER FIGUEROA, by and through her undersigned 

attorney, and hereby sues Defendants, DMO COLLBORATIVE, INC. (“DMO”), a Florida 

corporation, and DAVID OLSON (“OLSON”, together with DMO, “DEFENDANTS”), and 

alleges:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”).

2. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

3. Defendant, DMO COLLABORATIVE, INC. (“DMO”), is a Florida corporation, 

which at all times material hereto, was doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where 

Plaintiff was employed, and at all times material hereto was and is engaged in interstate commerce.

4. The individual Defendant, DAVID OLSON, is an “employer,” as defined in 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d), as he had operational control over the Defendant corporation DMO, and was 

directly involved in decisions affecting employees’ compensation and hours worked by 

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 1 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

2

employees, such as the Plaintiff. Moreover, Olson controlled the purse strings for the Defendant 

corporate entity DMO.

5. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime 

wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees

under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C.

§ 207.

6. FLSA coverage is triggered because DMO is and, at all times pertinent to this 

Complaint, was engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, DMO 

operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods and/or materials 

to customers from throughout the United States and also provides its services for goods sold and 

transported from across state lines of numerous other States, and DMO obtains and solicit funds 

from non-Florida sources, accept funds from non-Florida sources, use telephonic transmissions 

going over State lines to do its business, transmit funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise 

regularly engage in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees.

7. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of DMO was at all times

material hereto in excess of $500,000.00 per annum, and two or more employees handled goods 

or materials that moved in the stream of commerce on a frequent and recurrent basis, and/or 

Plaintiff, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfies the FLSA’s 

requirements.

8. Plaintiff regularly and on a recurring basis utilized and handled equipment, goods 

or materials manufactured and purchased from outside the State of Florida, or which originate 

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 2 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

3

from places outside the State of Florida, and regularly used the instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce in her work.

9. DMO was, and is, during all times hereafter mentioned, an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s) 

and/or Plaintiff is within interstate commerce.

FACTS

10. Plaintiff began working for Defendants on September 27, 2021.

11. DMOis in the business of web, brand, and digital marketing. Plaintiff was employed 

by Defendants as a Team Administrator.

12. Pursuant to the terms of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement, Plaintiff’s job 

responsibilities were:

(1) Personal Assistant to Managing Partner (Olson) 

(2) Team Administrator supporting the broader organization (DMO) 

(3) Junior Project Manager supporting a variety of client workflow tasks, 

including assisting in social media management, graphic design,

presentations.

(4) Assisting in prospecting and setting up discovery calls for Managing

Partner and other sales staff.

13. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a team administrator, first as an hourly 

employee and then as a purported salaried employee from approximately September 27, 2021

through February 28, 2022. 

14. From September 27, 2021, through February 4, 2022, pursuant to the terms of her 

Employment Agreement, Plaintiff was paid $16 per hour for 40 hours per week, for a total of 

$33,280 annually.

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 3 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

4

15. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff’s work hours were Monday 

through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break each day.

16. From February 4, 2022, through February 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s salary was raised to 

$40,000 annually, approximately $19.23 per hour.

17. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly and routinely 

worked more than 40 hours per week while performing services for Defendants as a team 

administrator.

18. In fact, when employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately 5 to 6 days 

a week and her hours varied weekly. Plaintiff estimates as a matter of just and reasonable inference 

that between September 2021 through February 2022, she worked an average of 50 hours per week. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend her estimates of hours worked once she reviews Defendants’ 

records.

19. Plaintiff was not paid at least one-and-one-half times her regular rate for all 

overtime hours worked for Defendants.

20. Plaintiff was not paid premium overtime wages for all hours she worked beyond 40 

in a single workweek.

21. Plaintiff’s job duties as a team administrator did not rise to the level of any 

exemptions or exceptions recognized by the FLSA. Plaintiff did not create financial budgets. 

Plaintiff did not create corporate policy. Plaintiff did not determine the salaries of any employees. 

Plaintiff did not have the authority to enter into agreements on behalf of Defendants. Instead, 

Plaintiff performed administrative and clerical work assisting the managing partner and other staff 

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 4 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

5

for purposes of trying to sell Defendants’ product.

22. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff’s actual job duties and responsibilities did 

not cause Plaintiff to be an exempt employee under the FLSA.

23. Plaintiff desired to be paid for all hours she spent working, including overtime 

hours.

24. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a single work 

week but refused, failed, or neglected to compensate Plaintiff at the appropriate overtime rate.

25. Specifically, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff at a rate of at least one-andone half times her regular rate in order to extract additional work from Plaintiff without 

compensating Plaintiff for the additional work.

26. Instead of paying overtime wages, Defendants circumvented the FLSA by failing to 

pay Plaintiff overtime wages, even though Plaintiff habitually worked up to 50 hours per week or 

more.

27. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiff has still not been paid the entirety of her wages

and has not been compensated for the full extent of her damages and wage loss under the FLSA.

28. Plaintiff seeks full compensation, including liquidated damages, because 

Defendants’ illegal conduct was a calculated attempt to extract additional work from Plaintiff to 

benefit Defendants.

29. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law offices to represent her in this action.

30. All conditions precedent to the claims below have occurred, been satisfied, or have 

been waived.

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 5 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

6

COUNT I – UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES

(as to DMO COLABORATIVE, INC.)

31. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set 

forth herein.

32. DMO is in the business of web, brand, and digital marketing. Plaintiff was 

responsible for administrative and clerical work assisting the managing partner and other staff for 

purposes of trying to sell Defendants’ product. Plaintiff worked for DMO from approximately 

September 2021 through February 2022. Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per week and 

was paid between $16 and $19.33 an hour.

33. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week during her employment with DMO. 

At no time throughout her employment was Plaintiff ever paid the overtime rate of time-and-onehalf the overtime hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff is entitled to be paid 

overtime wages at a rate of time-and-a-half the regular rate as required by the FLSA. Plaintiff 

requires obtaining the necessary records and information to determine the amount of overtime 

wages owed in this case.

34. At all times material hereto, DMO failed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-

219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff performed services and worked in

excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no provision was made by DMO to 

properly pay her at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per 

workweek, as provided in the FLSA.

35. DMO knew about, and showed reckless disregard for, the provisions of the FLSA 

concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, including 

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 6 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

7

but not limited to the following ways:

(a) DMO failed to keep adequate time records as required by the FLSA;

(b) DMO never paid Plaintiff the overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA;

(c) When Plaintiff regularly worked beyond her 40 hours a week, she was paid her

regular hourly rate.

36. DMO had knowledge that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours weekly, yet DMO

knowingly failed to pay her the required overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA.

37. DMO knew or should have known that any hours exceeding 40 hours weekly were

required to be paid at a rate of time-and-one-half.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JENNIFER FIGUEROA, demands judgment against DMO 

COLLABORATIVE, INC., compensatory and liquidated damages in an amount to be proven at 

the time of trial, or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, whichever is greater, plus 

applicable interest and other contractual charges, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and for such 

other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES

(as to DAVID OLSON)

38. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set 

forth herein.

39. The individual Defendant, DAVID OLSON, has operational control over DMO, 

and was directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and hours worked by

employees, such as Plaintiff. He also managed DMO and supervised employees, including 

Plaintiff.

40. Plaintiff worked for OLSON from approximately September 2021 through 

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 7 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

8

February 2022. Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per week and was paid between $16 and 

$19.33 an hour.

41. Plaintiff worked in excess of forty 40 hours per week during her employment with 

OLSON. At no time throughout her employment was Plaintiff ever paid the overtime rate of timeand-one-half the overtime hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff is entitled to 

be paid overtime wages at a rate of time-and-a-half the regular rate as required by the FLSA. 

Plaintiff requires obtaining the necessary records and information to determine the amount of 

overtime wages owed in this case.

42. At all times material hereto, OLSON failed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-

219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff performed services and worked in

excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no provision was made by OLSON to 

properly pay her at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per 

workweek, as provided in the FLSA.

43. OLSON knew about, and showed reckless disregard for, the provisions of the FLSA 

concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, including 

but not limited to the following ways:

(a) OLSON failed to keep adequate time records as required by the FLSA;

(b) OLSON never paid Plaintiff the overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA;

(c) When Plaintiff regularly worked beyond her 40 hours a week, she was paid her

regular hourly rate.

44. OLSON had knowledge that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours weekly, yet OLSON

knowingly failed to pay her the required overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA.

45. OLSON knew or should have known that any hours exceeding 40 hours weekly

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 8 of 9
000002/01409485_1 

9

were required to be paid at a rate of time-and-one-half.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JENNIFER FIGUEROA, demands judgment against DAVID 

OLSON, compensatory and liquidated damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, or 

as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, whichever is greater, plus applicable interest 

and other contractual charges, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and for such other relief as this 

Court deems appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

Dated: August 23, 2022

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW

FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel.: (954) 525-4100

By: /s/ Benjamin R. Muschel

BRIAN R. KOPELOWITZ 

Fla. Bar No.: 097225

kopelowitz@kolawyers.com

BENJAMIN R. MUSCHEL

Florida Bar No. 119305

muschel@kolawyers.com

Case 1:22-cv-22682-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 9 of 9