IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JOSHUA BAXTER and SANDRA 

SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC. 

and TRAVEL STAFF, LLC, 

Defendants. 

 

Case No. 9:22-cv-81137-AMC 

 Jury Trial Demanded

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Joshua Baxter and Sandra Summers file this First Amended Class and Collective 

Action Complaint as a matter of right. Plaintiffs assert their class and collective claims against 

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Travel Staff, LLC (collectively, 

“Cross Country” or “Defendant”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 

Plaintiffs make the following allegations based upon personal knowledge as to their own actions 

and upon information and belief as to all other matters. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Travel nurses serve a valuable role in our country’s healthcare system. Hospitals, 

clinics, and other healthcare facilities rely on skilled travel employees to fill short-term nursing 

employment gaps on a temporary basis. To fill these roles, healthcare facilities utilize intermediary 

staffing agencies to employ the travelers, negotiate pay rates, and schedule assignments. Traveling 

nurses have played an especially critical role since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many 

facilities experienced severe staffing shortages that required temporary assistance to continue 

providing quality healthcare. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 1 of 36
2

2. But a troubling practice has emerged. Cross Country is offering contracts to travel 

nurses with a fixed-term assignment at an agreed-upon pay rate for a minimum number of hours 

per week. After the nurse accepts the position, incurs travel and lodging expenses, foregoes other 

opportunities, and starts the assignment, Cross Country makes a “take-it-or-leave-it” demand to 

accept less pay or be terminated. Of course, most nurses have no choice but continue working the 

assignment at the lower rate because they have no reasonable alternatives for comparable 

employment: they have already incurred travel expenses, secured short-term housing, and uprooted 

their lives to accept the assignment. 

3. Cross Country is knowingly engaging in these coercive “bait-and-switch” practices 

to maintain the significant profit margins it had become accustomed to during the COVID-19 

pandemic. This lawsuit seeks recovery for the pay losses Plaintiffs and other travel nurses 

experienced as the result of Cross Country’s predatory business practices. 

4. Additionally, Cross Country is underpaying its travel employees for overtime hours 

worked. By law, employers must pay their employees one-and-a-half times their “regular rate” for 

all hours worked over forty in a workweek. But in determining this “regular rate,” Cross Country 

has only included its employees’ direct hourly cash wage among other items, and has excluded, in 

violation of the law, other parts of its employees’ compensation packages, thereby resulting in an 

artificially low rate of pay for overtime hours worked. 

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff Joshua Baxter is a citizen of Indiana who accepted a travel assignment 

from Cross Country to work at a healthcare facility located in Florida. Plaintiff Baxter’s written 

Consent to Join this case was previously filed along with the original Complaint. See Doc. 1-1. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 2 of 36
3

6. Plaintiff Sandra Summers is a citizen of Maryland who accepted a travel 

assignment from Cross Country to work at a healthcare facility in California. Plaintiff Summers’ 

written Consent to Join this case is attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1. 

7. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of 

business located in Palm Beach County, Florida, 6551 Park of Commerce Boulevard, Boca Raton, 

Florida 33487. 

8. Travel Staff, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of 

business located in Palm Beach County, Florida, 6551 Park of Commerce Boulevard, Boca Raton, 

Florida 33487. 

9. Travel Staff, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. 

Travel Staff, LLC is not truly a separate and distinct entity but a mere division of Cross Country 

Healthcare, Inc. as Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. controls all aspects of the policies, internal 

affairs, and daily operations of Travel Staff, LLC, including as to the specific policies and practices 

challenged in this action. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. treats Travel Staff, LLC as a mere 

department or instrumentality of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., and fails to meaningfully observe 

corporate formalities. Travel Staff, LLC lacks true independence from and is a legal alter ego of 

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. Thus, it is proper to treat Travel Staff, LLC and Cross Country 

Healthcare, Inc. as one company for the purposes of this case. 

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because this is a proposed class action in which: (1) there are at 

least 100 class members; (2) the combined claims of class members exceed $5,000,000.00, 

exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs; and (3) Cross Country and at least one class 

member are citizens of different states. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 3 of 36
4

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cross Country as to all claims asserted by 

Plaintiffs herein because Cross Country is “at home” in Florida and is therefore subject to general 

jurisdiction in this forum. 

12. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of Plaintiffs 

and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over all 

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

13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because this is the 

District in which Cross Country resides and a substantial part of the conduct at issue in this case 

occurred in this District. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Cross Country’s Bait-and-Switch Tactics and Improper Pay Rate Reductions 

14. Cross Country describes itself as “a true market leader” of healthcare staffing 

agencies in the United States. On its website, Cross Country represents that “[it] is a pioneering 

and innovative provider of market-leading workforce solutions and healthcare staffing services,” 

whose “solutions leverage [its] more than 30 years of expertise and insight to assist clients in 

solving complex labor-related challenges . . . . [It is] dedicated to recruiting and placing highly 

qualified healthcare professionals in virtually every specialty and area of expertise.” It promotes 

itself as a “[l]eading provider of travel nurse and allied staffing, per diem staffing, physician and 

advanced practice locum tenens, education staffing and physician and executive search services,” 

as well as “[l]eading provider of workforce solutions, including Managed Service Programs 

(MSP), Internal Resource Pool (IRP) Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Transition Staffing, 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 4 of 36
5

Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO) and Consulting services,” and it markets itself as having 

“20 years of MSP solutions for more than 3,100 facilities nationwide.”1

15. To fill temporary positions, healthcare facilities in need of temporary employment 

offer staffing agencies like Cross Country a “bill rate” which is a total amount they are willing to 

pay the staffing agency for every hour worked by a traveling nurse. The staffing agency then 

deducts costs, overhead, and profit margin from the bill rate and advertises the hourly rate it is 

willing to pay a traveling nurse to accept the facility assignment. 

16. Cross Country utilizes a form agreement entitled “assignment confirmation notice” 

for its traveling employees that include the following material terms: the facility name and address 

along with the start and end date for the assignment, the traveler’s hourly pay rate and scheduled 

hours per week, the traveler’s daily meals and incidentals allowance, the traveler’s daily lodging 

allowance, and an overtime rate that applies to all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 

17. The assignment confirmation agreement includes the statement that “I have read 

and agree to the terms and conditions as stated above and contained in the Cross Country Nurses 

Employment Terms and Conditions Booklet, which can be found at travel.crosscountry.com or 

that was provided to me in hard copy based on my request to 561-617-2525 and which are 

incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this agreement.” As a matter of course, Cross 

Country did not provide access to this booklet online at travel.crosscountry.com as represented or 

provide travel nurses reasonable access to this booklet either online or elsewhere prior to executing 

the agreement. 

18. After accepting a travel assignment, Cross Country knows that travel employees 

must move to the location of the facility, secure short-term housing, and incur other significant 

1 https://www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 5 of 36
6

travel and housing related costs at their own expense in order to comply with their obligations 

under the agreement. 

Plaintiff Joshua Baxter 

19. On or before March 11, 2022, Cross Country made an employment offer to Plaintiff 

Joshua Baxter which included a fixed-term travel assignment in Gainesville, Florida. 

20. The employment agreement offered Joshua Baxter a position at UF Health Shands 

Hospital from April 10, 2022 until July 9, 2022, with the following compensation package: a base 

hourly pay rate of $102.78 with a minimum of 36 scheduled hours per week; an overtime hourly 

pay rate of $187.31; a holiday hourly pay rate of $187.31; an hourly call-back rate of $171.38; a 

daily meals and incidentals allowance of $59.00; and a daily lodging allowance of $91.35. 

21. In reliance on the foregoing material terms, Joshua Baxter accepted Cross 

Country’s offer of employment by executing Cross Country’s form assignment confirmation 

agreement on March 11, 2022. To comply with his duties under the agreement, Joshua Baxter 

continued to travel away from his home, Indiana, to Gainesville, Florida, at his own expense, 

secured short-term living arrangements, and forwent other employment opportunities. 

22. Although the assignment confirmation agreement purported to incorporate terms 

and conditions contained in the Cross Country Nurses Employment Terms and Conditions 

Booklet, the booklet was never made available to Joshua Baxter either online or elsewhere prior 

to (or after) executing the agreement. Consequently, Joshua Baxter did not and could not agree to 

terms and conditions contained in a booklet that was never provided to him as there was no meeting 

of the minds or mutual assent regarding such terms. 

23. On April 15, 2022, about five days into the assignment and after Plaintiff Baxter 

had incurred considerable expense and opportunity cost, Cross Country made him a “take-it-orCase 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 6 of 36
7

leave-it” demand to accept less pay or be terminated. Specifically, Cross Country demanded that 

Plaintiff Baxter accept an approximately 20% reduction in his base hourly pay rate, from $102.78 

to $82.15; 16% reduction in his overtime hourly pay rate, from $187.31 to $156.94; 16% reduction 

in his holiday hourly pay rate, from $187.31 to $156.94; and 18% reduction in his call-back hourly 

pay rate, from $171.38 to $140.43; in order to complete the previously agreed-upon assignment. 

24. Having already spent substantial time and money securing the assignment and 

taking the steps necessary to ensure compliance with his obligations under the agreement, and 

unable to find comparable employment in such a short period of time, Plaintiff Baxter had no 

choice but to continue working the assignment at the lower rate. 

25. Plaintiff Baxter completed his assignment in accordance with his duties. As a result, 

Joshua Baxter suffered monetary losses. At a minimum, the difference between the value of the 

original agreement and the unilateral pay reduction was more than $5,000. 

Plaintiff Sandra Summers 

26. On or before March 23, 2022, Cross Country made an employment offer to Plaintiff 

Sandra Summers which included a fixed-term travel assignment in Walnut Creek, California. 

27. The employment agreement offered Sandra Summers a position at John Muir 

Medical Center from March 29, 2022, until June 25, 2022, with the following compensation 

package: a base hourly pay rate of $76.42 with a minimum of 36 scheduled hours per week; an 

overtime hourly pay rate of $114.53; a holiday hourly pay rate of $114.53; an hourly call-back rate 

of $136.21; a daily meals and incidentals allowance of $74.00; and a daily lodging allowance of 

$157.83. 

28. In reliance on the foregoing material terms, Sandra Summers accepted Cross 

Country’s offer of employment by executing Cross Country’s form assignment confirmation 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 7 of 36
8

notice on March 23, 2022. To comply with her duties under the agreement, Sandra Summers 

traveled from her home, Baltimore, Maryland, to Walnut Creek, California, at her own expense, 

secured short-term living arrangements, and forwent other employment opportunities. 

29. Although the assignment confirmation agreement purported to incorporate terms 

and conditions contained in the Cross Country Nurses Employment Terms and Conditions 

Booklet, the booklet was never made available to Sandra Summers either online or elsewhere prior 

to (or after) executing the agreement. Consequently, Sandra Summers did not and could not agree 

to terms and conditions contained in a booklet that was never provided to her as there was no 

meeting of the minds or mutual assent regarding such terms. 

30. On April 27, 2022, about one month into the assignment, Cross Country made 

Sandra Summers a “take-it-or-leave-it” demand to accept less pay or be terminated. Specifically, 

Cross Country demanded that Sandra Summers accept an approximately 22% reduction in her base 

hourly pay rate, from $76.42 to $59.46; 22% reduction in her overtime hourly pay rate, from 

$114.53 to $89.19; 22% reduction in her holiday hourly pay rate, from $114.53 to $89.19; and 

19% reduction in her call-back hourly pay rate, from $136.21 to $110.77; in order to complete the 

previously agreed-upon assignment. 

31. Having already spent substantial time and money securing the assignment and 

taking the steps necessary to ensure compliance with her obligations under the agreement, and 

unable to find comparable employment in such a short period of time, Sandra Summers had no 

choice but to continue working the assignment at the lower rate. 

32. Plaintiff Sandra Summers completed her assignment in accordance with her duties. 

As a result, Sandra Summers suffered monetary losses. At a minimum, the difference between the 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 8 of 36
9

value of the original agreement and the value of the take-it-or-leave-it demand was more than 

$5,000. 

33. Plaintiffs are not alone. Hundreds, if not thousands, of traveling nurses and other 

healthcare workers employed by Cross Country have reported experiencing similar “take-it-orleave it” pay cuts in the middle of their contractual terms. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated 

employees relied on the material terms of their agreements including: the fixed assignment term, 

the payment package, and the guaranteed hours or days in accepting their offers; as the assignment 

had to be worth foregoing other employment, relocating, and incurring the associated professional 

and personal costs of accepting the travel assignment. In addition, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated employees relied on the fact the foregoing material terms could not be changed without 

additional consideration and the reasonable expectation that Cross Country would act in good faith 

and fair dealing and honor its promises or representations. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated 

employees would not have accepted the agreement had they known that Cross Country would 

violate the terms and spirit of the agreement. 

34. By making the take-it-or-leave-it demands described above, after Plaintiffs relied 

on Cross Country’s representations and undertook obligations under the agreement, Cross Country 

breached its contracts with Plaintiffs—specifically the promises of employment at a specified rate 

of pay for a fixed-term assignment. Cross Country made these take-it-or-leave-it-demands in 

breach of the express terms of the contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. 

35. There is no legal justification for Cross Country’s conduct. Even if Cross Country’s 

client no longer needed as much staff or decided to reduce the bill rate, for example, nothing in the 

terms of the form agreement authorizes Cross Country to unilaterally adjust pay rates to account 

for new circumstances, whether foreseeable or not. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 9 of 36
10

36. The “revised” agreements that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees 

were coerced to sign are not enforceable because an effective contract modification or accord 

requires the exchange of new consideration. As alleged herein, there was no exchange of new 

consideration because Plaintiffs were compelled to undertake the same obligations for less pay. 

Consequently, Cross Country cannot relieve itself of its contractual obligations under one contract 

by coercing acceptance of a second contract with less favorable terms. 

B. Cross Country’s Miscalculation of Its Employees’ Regular Rate of Pay and Resulting 

Failure to Lawfully Pay Overtime. 

37. By law, employers must pay their employees one-and-half times their “regular rate” 

for all overtime hours (i.e., hours over 40 in a single workweek) worked. In addition to the baitand-switch tactics discussed above, the reduced overtime rate that Cross Country paid putative 

class members failed to compensate them at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay in violation of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act and state overtime statutes. 

38. As a general matter, an employee’s “regular rate” is “deemed to include all 

remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” but excludes, inter alia, 

“reasonable payments for traveling expenses, or other expenses, incurred by an employee in the 

furtherance of his employer’s interests and properly reimbursable by the employer; and other 

similar payments to an employee which are not made as compensation for his hours of 

employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(e). 

39. In calculating the overtime rate paid to its employees, Cross Country wrongfully 

excluded from their regular rate various stipends and allowances paid to its employees, including 

a “Holiday” pay, “Charge” pay, “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay, “Meals and Incidentals 

Allowance,” and “Lodging Allowance,” even though these payments functioned as a form of 

compensation as part of its’ employees’ pay package. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 10 of 36
11

40. For example, Plaintiff Sandra Summers was paid overtime at an original rate of 

$114.63 per hour, or 1.5 times her original base hourly pay rate of $76.42, and a reduced rate of 

$89.19 per hour, or 1.5 times her reduced hourly pay rate of $59.46. Her “Holiday” pay, “Charge” 

pay, “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay, “Meals and Incidentals Allowance,” and “Lodging 

Allowance” were not included in the calculation of her original or reduced regular rate. 

41. Plaintiff Sandra Summers worked more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks 

during her contract with Cross County during which these forms of compensation were not 

included in her regular rate of pay in violation of federal and state law. 

42. In the workweek beginning on March 27, 2022 and ending on April 2, 2022, 

Plaintiff Summers worked 42 hours meaning that she was owed 1.5 times her regular rate for the 

two hours worked over 40 hours in a single workweek under both federal and California law. Also 

during that workweek, Plaintiff Summers worked 12 hours on March 29, 10 hours on March 31, 

and 12 hours on April 1, meaning that she was owed 1.5 times her regular rate for a total of 9 hours 

that were worked over eight hours in a single day under California law. However, in calculating 

her regular rate of pay for hours over 40 in the workweek and hours over eight in a single workday, 

Cross County failed to include non-discretionary pay that it titled “Meals and Incidental 

Allowance” and “Lodging Allowance.” In that workweek, Plaintiff Summers worked 42 hours at 

her base hourly rate of $76.42. She was paid overtime for hours over 40 in a workweek and hours 

over eight in a workday at $114.63 per hour. But, during that workweek, Cross Country paid her 

non-discretionary wages of $789.15 for “Lodging Allowance” and $370 for “Meals and Incidental 

Allowance.” When the $1,159.15 of non-discretionary wages are included in her regular rate of 

pay as required by federal and California law, Plaintiff Summers’ regular rate of pay during that 

workweek was $104.02 per hour. Multiplying that rate by 1.5 as required by federal (see 29 U.S.C. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 11 of 36
12

§ 207(a)) and California law (Cal. Lab. Code § 510(a)) required her to be paid overtime at a rate 

of, at least, $156.03 per hour. Thus, during that workweek, Cross Country underpaid Plaintiff 

Summers overtime by approximately $413. 

43. In addition, Cross Country failed to pay Plaintiff Summers double time at the 

correct regular rate of pay for hours over 12 in a single workday in violation of California law. 

For example, in the workweek beginning April 3, 2022 and running through April 9, 2022, Plaintiff 

Summers worked 12.2 hours on April 4 and 12.28 hours on April 6 at her hourly rate of $76.42 

per hour. Cross Country paid her for 8 hours of overtime at an hourly rate of $114.63 and paid her 

for 0.3 hours of double time at an hourly rate of $152.84. Under California law, she was owed 1.5 

times her regular rate of pay for 8 hours and double her regular rate of pay for .3 hours. However, 

again, Cross Country failed to include $1,104.81 for “Lodging Allowance” and $518 for “Meals 

and Incidental Allowance” in her regular rate of pay when calculating her overtime and double 

time payments. When that $1,622.81 in non-discretionary wages is factored into her regular rate 

of pay as required by federal and California law, Plaintiff Summers’ regular rate of pay during that 

workweek was $143.20 per hour. Multiplying that rate by 1.5 as required by federal (see 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207(a)) and California law (Cal. Lab. Code § 510(a)) required her to be paid overtime for hours 

over 40 in a workweek and hours over 8 in a workday at a rate of, at least, $214.80 per hour. 

Further, Cross Country failed to pay her double her regular rate (or $286.40 per hour) for all hours 

over 12 in a single workday. Thus, during that workweek, Cross Country underpaid Plaintiff 

Summers overtime by approximately $860 for hours over 8 in a single workday and hours over 12 

in a single workday. Cross Country similarly underpaid Plaintiff Summers overtime in violation 

of federal and California law in the following workweeks: April 3 to April 9, 2022; April 10 to 

April 16, 2022; April 17 to April 23, 2022; April 24 to April 30, 2022; May 1 to May 7, 2022; 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 12 of 36
13

May 8 to May 14, 2022; May 15 to May 21, 2022; May 22 to May 28, 2022; May 29 to June 4, 

2022; June 5 to June 11, 2022; June 12 to June 18, 2022; and June 19 to June 25, 2022. 

44. Cross Country’s exclusion of the various pay rates, stipends, and allowances paid 

to its employees, including the “Holiday” pay, “Charge” pay, “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay, 

“Meals and Incidentals Allowance,” and “Lodging Allowance,” from said employees’ “regular 

rate” in calculating overtime was wrongful and in violation of the law, in that: 

a. Said payments functioned as compensation for the employees’ hours of 

employment; 

b. Said payments were tied to the number of hours worked, rather than the amount of 

expenses actually incurred; 

c. Said payments varied with the number of hours worked per week, such that if an 

employee missed one or more shifts, said payments would be reduced a 

corresponding amount regardless of the reason for missing the shift. For example, 

Cross County reduced Plaintiff Summers’ allowances by approximately $465 

during her first week of work because her first shift was on Tuesday despite the fact 

she had already incurred the travel and lodging expenses to arrive earlier that week; 

d. Said payments did not vary with the amount of expenses an employee actually 

incurred, nor were they calculated to approximate actual expenses. Employees were 

not required to document expenses, nor provide any attestation that he or she 

actually incurred a particular amount of expenses in a given period; 

e. Upon information and belief, said payments were not limited to employees who 

were actually traveling, but instead could be received by local employees who 

worked proximate to their residence; and 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 13 of 36
14

f. Upon information and belief, employees could roll over extra shifts worked in a 

previous week avoid a pro rata reduction in said payments occasioned by having 

missed one or more shifts in a given week. 

45. Cross Country classified this form of compensation as expense reimbursement to 

avoid paying payroll taxes on these wages and to avoid paying materially increased overtime rates, 

particularly given that many travel nurses are guaranteed more than 40 hours per week. 

46. As a result of Cross Country’s failure to properly calculate its employees’ regular 

rates, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid for all overtime worked in 

accordance with the law. 

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL FLSA CLAIMS 

47. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees have 

been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 

et seq. 

48. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime pay by 

employers whose employees are engaged in interstate commerce, or engaged in the production of 

goods for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

49. At all relevant times, Cross Country has been an enterprise engaged in commerce 

or in the production of goods or services for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 

203(s)(1), and, upon information and belief, has an annual gross volume of sales made or business 

done of not less than $500,000. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 14 of 36
15

50. During all relevant times to this action, Cross Country acted as the “employer” of 

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d). 

51. During all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated 

employees were Cross Country’s “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 

203(e). 

52. Pursuant to the FLSA, employees are also entitled to be compensated at a rate of 

not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which such employees are employed for all 

work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). 

53. Although the FLSA contains some exceptions (or exemptions) from the overtime 

requirements, none of those exceptions (or exemptions) applies here. 

54. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are victims of uniform and 

unlawful compensation policies. 

55. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to 

the mandated overtime premium pay within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this 

Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because Cross Country acted willfully and knew, or 

showed reckless disregard of whether, its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA. 

56. Cross Country has acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to 

believe that its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result, Plaintiffs 

and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in 

an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages as described by Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 

codified at 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Cross Country acted in good 

faith or with reasonable grounds in failing to pay overtime compensation, Plaintiffs and other 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 15 of 36
16

similarly situated employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal 

rate. 

57. As a result of these violations of the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions, 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Cross Country from Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated employees. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Cross Country is liable for the 

unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay along with an additional amount as liquidated 

damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of this 

action. 

CROSS COUNTRY AND TRAVEL STAFF JOINTLY EMPLOYED PLAINTIFF 

58. As alleged above, Cross Country and its wholly-owned subsidiary Travel Staff are 

alter egos of one another and should be considered the same corporate entity for purposes of this 

litigation. 

59. To the extent the Court finds that Cross Country and Travel Staff should be treated 

as separate entities, both entities jointly employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated travel 

nurses within the meaning of the FLSA and state law. 

60. Travel Staff acknowledges employing Plaintiffs and similarly situated travel 

nurses. Due to the pervasive control Cross Country exercised over the terms and conditions of the 

employment of Plaintiffs and similarly situated travel nurses, Cross Country jointly employed 

these workers along with Travel Staff. 

61. Upon information and belief, Cross Country controls all aspects of Travel Staff’s 

business. Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, Cross Country controls the employment 

relationship as a matter of economic reality. Cross Country instructs Travel Staff (to the extent 

there is a difference between the two) on how and when to execute employment policies. Travel 

Staff must and do follow Cross Country’s operational instructions. Due to the pervasive control 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 16 of 36
17

Cross Country both possesses and exercises over the employees at Travel Staff (both directly and 

indirectly), Cross Country is a joint employer of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated travel 

nurses. 

62. Upon information and belief, Cross Country maintains complete control over the 

policies and procedures for employees at Travel Staff. 

63. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Cross Country, with and through 

Travel Staff (to the extent there is even a difference between the two), jointly employed Plaintiffs 

(and other similarly situated travel nurses) because: 

a. Cross Country had the right to and did exercise control over the 

hiring and firing of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated travel nurses; 

b. Cross Country had the right to and did supervise the work schedules, 

conditions of employment, and the manner in which Plaintiffs and all other 

similarly situated travel nurses performed their jobs; 

c. Cross Country had the right to and did determine the rate and 

method of payment for Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated travel nurses; and 

d. Cross Country was primarily responsible for and did maintain the 

employment records for Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees. 

64. To the extent Cross Country and Travel Staff are not alter egos of one another, 

Cross Country and Travel Staff jointly employed Plaintiffs and all similarly situated travel nurses. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

65. Class Definitions: Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of other 

similarly situated individuals. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), 23(b)(2), 

and/or 23(c)(4), Plaintiffs seek certification of the foregoing classes and subclasses, defined as 

follows: 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 17 of 36
18

The Class: All persons who entered into an Assignment Confirmation 

Notice agreement with Cross Country and whose total compensation was 

reduced before the end of the agreed upon term. 

State Wage Payment Laws Class: All persons who entered into an 

Assignment Confirmation Notice agreement with Cross Country to work at 

a facility or location in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 

or Wyoming and whose total compensation was reduced before the end of 

the agreed upon term. 

The California Class: All persons who entered into an Assignment 

Confirmation Notice agreement with Cross Country to work at a facility or 

location in California, or who traveled from California to an assignment in 

another state, and whose total compensation was reduced before the end of 

the agreed upon term. 

State Unpaid Overtime Class: All persons who entered into an Assignment 

Confirmation Notice agreement with Cross Country to work at a facility or 

location in Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin 

who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, 8 hours in a day, or 12 

hours in a day and whose regular rate of pay did not include the “Holiday” 

pay, “Charge” pay, “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay, “Meals and Incidentals 

Allowance,” and “Lodging Allowance” (or their equivalents by any other 

name). 

66. Excluded from the Class are the Court and its officers, employees, and relatives; 

Cross Country and its subsidiaries, officers, and directors; and governmental entities. 

67. Numerosity: the Class consists of members so numerous and geographically 

dispersed that joinder of all members is impracticable, as Cross Country employs thousands of 

similarly situated individuals across the United States. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 18 of 36
19

68. All members of the Class are ascertainable by reference to objective criteria, as 

Cross Country has access to addresses and other contact information for Class members that can 

be used for notice purposes. 

69. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate: There are many questions of 

law and fact common to Plaintiffs and the Class, and those questions substantially predominate 

over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions include: 

a. Did Cross Country make actionable misrepresentations or omissions? 

b. Were Cross Country’s promises, representations, or omissions false or 

misleading? 

c. Did Cross Country intend for Plaintiffs and the Class to rely on its promises, 

representations, or omissions? 

d. Should Cross Country have known that such promises or representations would 

cause justifiable or reasonable reliance? 

e. Did Cross Country owe a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class to not 

conceal the truth? 

f. Did Cross Country’s conduct in reducing compensation packages breach the 

travel assignment agreements? 

g. Did Cross Country act in bad faith? 

h. Did Cross Country engage in fraudulent concealment? 

i. Did Cross Country’s conduct violate state wage payment statutes? 

j. Did Cross Country fail to include certain forms of non-discretionary 

compensation in Plaintiffs and class members’ regular rate of pay? 

70. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of other members of the Class because all 

of the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Cross Country, the same fraudulent business 

practice, and are based on the same legal theories. 

71. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because 

their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members whom they seek to represent. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 19 of 36
20

Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex and class 

action litigation. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action 

on behalf of Class members and have the financial resources to do so. The Class members’ interests 

will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel. 

72. Superiority of Class Action: Class treatment is superior to individual treatment, as 

it will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their respective class claims 

in a single forum, simultaneously, efficiently, and without unnecessary duplication of evidence, 

effort, and expense that numerous individual actions would produce. 

73. To the extent not all issues or claims, including the amount of damages, can be 

resolved on a class-wide basis, Plaintiffs invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), 

reserving the right to seek certification of a class action with respect to particular issues, and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(5), reserving the right to divide the class into subclasses. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

74. Plaintiff Sandra Summers brings Count VIII, the FLSA claim arising out of Cross 

Country’s overtime violations, as an “opt in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on 

behalf of herself and the following collective action class: 

All persons currently or formerly employed by Cross Country who worked 

more than 40 hours in a workweek and whose regular rate of pay did not 

include the “Holiday” pay, “Charge” pay, “On Call” pay, “Call Back” pay, 

“Meals and Incidentals Allowance,” and “Lodging Allowance” (or their 

equivalents by any other name) at any time from three (3) years prior to the 

filing of the initial Class and Collective Action Complaint to the present. 

Plaintiff’s FLSA claim may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b). 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 20 of 36
21

 58. Plaintiff Sandra Summers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, seeks relief on a collective basis challenging Cross Country’s above-described FLSA 

violations. The number and identity of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party 

plaintiffs may be determined from Cross Country’s records, and potential opt-in plaintiffs may 

easily and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

59. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

60. Cross Country offered Plaintiffs and class members employment by certain written 

terms in the agreement. 

61. As consideration for their agreement, Cross Country agreed, among other things, 

to employ, pay, and provide certain benefits to Plaintiffs and class members under their respective 

agreements; and Plaintiffs and class members agreed, among other things, to provide undertake 

certain obligations. 

62. The parties mutually assented to the agreement. 

63. Plaintiffs and class members accepted Cross Country’s offer of employment by 

executing the agreement. 

64. After the parties entered the agreement, Cross Country materially breached the 

agreement by failing to pay Plaintiffs and class members the amounts they promised. 

65. In making take-or-leave-it pay reductions under circumstances where Cross 

Country knew Plaintiffs and class members would have no choice but to continue working despite 

the unilateral pay reduction, Cross Country also deliberately breached the implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing inherent in the parties’ agreements. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 21 of 36
22

66. Before the breaches, all conditions precedent had been fulfilled. 

67. Plaintiffs’ and class members’ damages would not have occurred but for Cross 

Country’s breaches and Cross Country’s breaches proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and class 

members’ damages. 

68. Following the breaches, Plaintiffs and class members made all reasonable efforts 

to mitigate resulting damages. 

69. Plaintiffs’ and class members’ damages include the difference in compensation 

agreed to under the agreement and the actual compensation Plaintiffs and class members received, 

as well as the costs, expenses, and losses Plaintiffs and class members incurred as a natural and 

foreseeable result or consequence of Cross Country’s breaches. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

70. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

71. Cross Country made clear and unambiguous promises to Plaintiffs and class 

members regarding their pay rates that it knew or should have known would induce Plaintiffs and 

class members to enter into employment agreements with Cross Country and incur certain costs 

and expenses associated with relocation and housing. 

72. Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied on such promises in entering into 

employment agreements, relocating, and incurring certain expenses, costs, and losses. 

73. Cross Country’s promises in fact induced Plaintiffs and class members to enter into 

employment agreements, relocate, and incur certain expenses, costs, and losses. Cross Country 

knew and intended for Plaintiffs and class members to rely on these promises. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 22 of 36
23

74. It would be unjust to allow Cross Country to profit from making such inducing 

promises and not fulfilling them. 

75. This injustice can only be avoided by forcing Cross Country to fulfill these 

promises. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

76. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

77. Plaintiffs and class members conferred a benefit upon Cross Country by filling open 

healthcare positions that permitted Cross Country to profit as an intermediary staffing agency. 

78. Cross Country appreciated and had knowledge of the benefit Plaintiffs and class 

members conferred on it. 

79. Cross Country, by making take-it-or-leave-it demands to reduce Plaintiffs’ and 

class members’ pay rates or total compensation in the middle of their contractual terms, kept 

money that was contractually promised to Plaintiffs and class members and, therefore, accepted 

and retained benefits under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for Cross Country to 

retain such benefits without payment of its value. 

80. Under the circumstances, Cross Country should in justice and fairness be compelled 

to give its benefit to Plaintiffs and class members. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

81. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

82. Cross Country made material representations of fact to Plaintiffs and class members 

about their pay rates and total compensation that were false or misleading. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 23 of 36
24

83. At the time it made such representations, Cross Country knew that its 

representations were false and it would pay Plaintiffs and class members less than the amounts it 

promised if it so determined. 

84. Cross Country’s misrepresentations were made with the purpose to defraud 

Plaintiffs and class members. 

85. At the time it made such representations, Cross Country knew Plaintiffs and class 

members would justifiably rely on its representations in entering into their travel assignment 

agreements, relocating, and incurring certain expenses, costs, and losses. 

86. Cross Country had a duty to disclose its representations were false or misleading 

because Cross Country had superior knowledge that was not reasonably available to Plaintiffs and 

class members, Plaintiffs and class members were entitled to know given the relation of trust and 

confidence between them, and disclosure was necessary to prevent Plaintiffs and class members 

from being misled or mistaken. 

87. Plaintiffs and class members did not know Cross Country’s representations 

regarding their pay rate were false or misleading and had a right to rely on and reasonably relied 

on them in entering into travel assignment agreements, relocating, and incurring certain expenses, 

costs, and losses. 

88. As a result of Cross Country’s fraudulent inducement, Plaintiffs and class members 

sustained damages as described herein. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

89. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 24 of 36
25

90. As their prospective employer, Cross Country owed Plaintiffs and class members a 

duty to disclose the fact that Cross Country would unilaterally reduce their pay rates or total 

compensation after they accepted a position that required relocating, and incurring certain 

expenses, costs, and losses. 

91. Cross Country intended to defraud or deceive Plaintiffs and class members. 

92. Plaintiffs and class members justifiably relied on Cross Country’s fraudulent 

concealment by entering into employment agreements, relocating, and incurring certain expenses, 

costs, and losses. 

93. As a result of Cross Country’s fraudulent inducement, Plaintiffs and class members 

sustained damages as described herein. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class

94. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

95. As their prospective employer, Cross Country owed Plaintiffs and class members a 

duty or reasonable care to not make false or misleading statements regarding their employment. 

96. Cross Country knew, should have known, or recklessly disregarded that its 

representations to Plaintiffs and class members regarding their pay rates and overall compensation 

reflected in the travel assignment agreements were false or misleading, because it was reasonably 

foreseeable that Cross Country would make a “take-it-or-leave-it” demand to accept less 

compensation or be terminated after acceptance of the initial offer. 

97. Cross Country intended for Plaintiffs and class members to act on the false or 

misleading statements. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 25 of 36
26

98. Cross Country knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and class members would 

rely on the false or misleading statements. 

99. Cross Country breached its duty of reasonable care by making the false or 

misleading statements and thus failing to act as a reasonably prudent person would have under the 

same or similar circumstances by not making those statements. 

100. Plaintiffs and class members justifiably relied on Cross Country’s negligent 

misrepresentations by entering into employment agreements, relocating, and incurring certain 

expenses, costs, and losses. 

101. As a result of Cross Country’s negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and class 

members sustained damages as described herein. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 

STATE WAGE PAYMENT LAWS 

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the State Wage Payment Laws Class

102. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reiterate, and incorporate by reference each of the 

foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

103. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and class members were employed by 

Cross Country. 

104. Cross Country’s course of conduct described above violated wage payment laws of 

the states listed herein by failing to pay all wages due or owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated employees for which the company had agreed to pay. Cross Country’s failure to pay all 

wages due and owing to its employees is in violation of the following state wage payment laws, 

each of whose relevant terms are materially equivalent such that a common violation may be 

established on a class-wide basis: 

a. Alaska – Alaska Stat. § 23.05.140 et seq.; 

b. Arizona – Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23–351 et seq.; 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 26 of 36
27

c. Arkansas – Ark. Code Ann. § 11–4–401 et seq.; 

d. California – Cal. Lab. Code § 204 et seq.; 

e. Colorado – Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8–4–101 et seq.; 

f. Connecticut – Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31–71b et seq.; 

g. Delaware – Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 1102 et seq.; 

h. Florida – Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.08 et seq.; 

i. Georgia – Ga. Code Ann. § 34–7–2 et seq.; Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1-6 et seq.; 

j. Hawaii – Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388–2 et seq.; 

k. Idaho – Idaho Code Ann. § 45–608 et seq.; 

l. Illinois – 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.; 

m. Indiana – Ind. Code Ann. § 22–2-5–1 et seq.; 

n. Iowa – Iowa Code Ann. § 91A.3 et seq.; 

o. Kansas – Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44–314 et seq.; 

p. Kentucky – Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.020 et seq.; 

q. Louisiana – La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:631 et seq.; 

r. Massachusetts – Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149, § 148 et seq.; 

s. Minnesota – Minn. Stat. Ann. § 181.101 et seq.; 

t. Mississippi – Miss. Code. Ann. § 71–1–35 et seq.; 

u. Missouri – Mo. Ann. Stat. § 290.080 et seq.; 

v. Montana – Mont. Code Ann. § 39–3–204 et seq.; 

w. Nebraska – Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48–1230 et seq.; 

x. Nevada – Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 608.060 et seq.; 

y. New Hampshire – N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:43 et seq.; 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 27 of 36
28

z. New Jersey – N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11–4.2 et seq.; 

aa. New Mexico – N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50–4–26 et seq.; 

bb. New York – N.Y. Lab. Law § 191 et seq.; 

cc. North Carolina – N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 95–25.6 et seq.; 

dd. North Dakota – N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 34–14-02 et s–q.; 

ee. Ohio – Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4113.15 et seq.; 

ff. Oklahoma – Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, § 165.2 et seq.; 

gg. Oregon – Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 652.120 et seq.; 

hh. Pennsylvania – 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 260.3 et seq.; 

ii. Rhode Island – R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 28–14–2.2 et seq.; 

jj. South Carolina – S.C. Code § 41–10–10 et seq.; 

kk. South Dakota – S.D. Codified Laws § 60–11–1 et seq.; 

ll. Utah – Utah Code Ann. § 34–28–3 et seq.; 

mm. Vermont – Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 342 et seq.; 

nn. Virginia – Va. Code Ann. § 40.1–29 et seq.; 

oo. Washington – RCW 49.48 et seq.; 

pp. West Virginia – W. Va. Code Ann. § 21–5–3 et seq.; 

qq. Wisconsin – Wis. Stat. Ann. § 109.03 et seq.; and 

rr. Wyoming – Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27–4-101 et seq. 

105. Cross Country maintains a company–wide policy and practice of failing and 

refusing to pay wages due and owing to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, and said 

policy is willful in nature and not the result of a good-faith mistake. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 28 of 36
29

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 

CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 970 

On Behalf of Plaintiff Summers and the California Class

106. Plaintiff Summers hereby repeats, reiterates, and incorporates by reference each of 

the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

107. California Labor Code § 970 prohibits employers from influencing or persuading 

an employee to relocate from one place to another for work, by means of knowingly false 

misrepresentations regarding, among other things, the kind, character, or existence of such work; 

the length of time such work will last; or the compensation therefor. Cal. Lab. Code § 970. 

108. Cross Country made representations to Plaintiff Summers and members of the 

California Class (collectively “Plaintiffs” for purposes of this count) concerning the kind or 

character of the work, the length of time the work would last, or the compensation therefor. 

109. Cross Country’s representations were false, for the reasons alleged herein. 

110. Cross Country knew when the representations were made that they were false. 

111. Cross Country intended that Plaintiffs would rely on its false representations. 

112. Plaintiffs relied on Cross Country’s false representations and relocated for the 

purpose of working for Cross Country. 

113. As a result of Cross Country’s misrepresentations, Plaintiffs were harmed, and their 

reliance on the Cross Country’s representations was a substantial factor in causing such harm. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNPAID OVERTIME UNDER THE FLSA 

On Behalf of Plaintiff Summers and the Nationwide FLSA Collective 

114. Plaintiff Summers hereby repeats, reiterates, and incorporates by reference each of 

the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

115. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Summers and other similarly situated 

employees (collectively “Plaintiffs” for purposes of this count) were employed by Cross Country. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 29 of 36
30

116. Cross Country violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs for all overtime hours 

worked at one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in 

a workweek. 

117. Specifically, the FLSA requires that employees are paid one and one-half times 

their “regular rate” of pay. The “regular hourly rate of pay of an employee is determined by 

dividing his total remuneration for employment (except statutory exclusions) in any workweek by 

the total number of hours actually worked by him in that workweek for which such compensation 

was paid.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.109. 

118. Cross Country improperly reduced its employees’ regular rate when calculating 

overtime by wrongfully excluding certain forms of compensation, including stipends and 

allowances. 

119. In so doing, Cross Country failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs for overtime 

worked pursuant to the FLSA. 

120. Cross Country is not eligible for any FLSA exemption excusing their failure to pay 

overtime. 

121. Plaintiffs are victims of a uniform, company-wide compensation policy. 

122. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages equal to the mandated overtime premium pay 

within the three years preceding their joining this action, plus periods of equitable tolling, because 

Cross Country acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of whether, its conduct was 

prohibited by the FLSA. 

123. Cross Country has acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to 

believe that its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, 

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 30 of 36
31

of unpaid overtime pay pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Cross 

Country did act with good faith and reasonable grounds in failing to pay overtime pay, Plaintiffs 

are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 

STATE OVERTIME STATUTES 

On Behalf of Plaintiff Summers and the State Unpaid Overtime Class 

124. Plaintiff Summers hereby repeats, reiterates, and incorporates by reference each of 

the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

125. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Summers and other similarly situated 

employees (collectively “Plaintiffs” for purposes of this count) were employed by Cross Country. 

126. Cross Country’s course of conduct described herein violated the various overtime 

statutes of the several states listed in the subsequent paragraph by improperly excluding from its 

employees’ regular rate certain forms of compensation, including stipends and allowances, thereby 

resulting in unpaid overtime owed to Plaintiffs. 

127. Cross Country’s failure to pay overtime to its employees is in violation of the 

following state overtime laws, each of whose relevant terms are materially equivalent such that a 

common violation may be established on a class-wide basis: 

a. Alaska – Alaska Stat. § 23.10.060 et seq.; 

b. California – Cal. Lab. Code § 510 et seq.; 

c. Colorado – Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8–6–101 et seq.; 7 Colo. Code Regs § 1103–

1(4) et seq.; 

d. Connecticut – Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31–76c et seq.; 

e. Delaware – Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 1102 et seq.; 

f. Florida – Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.08 et seq.; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 488.01 et seq.; 

g. Georgia – Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-22 et seq.; 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 31 of 36
32

h. Hawaii – Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 387–3 et seq.; 

i. Illinois – 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/4a et seq.; 

j. Kentucky – Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.285 et seq.; 

k. Michigan – Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 408.414a et seq.; 

l. Minnesota – Minn. Stat. Ann. § 177.23 et seq. et seq.; 

m. Missouri – Mo. Ann. Stat. § 290.505 et seq.; 

n. Montana – Mont. Rev. Code Ann. § 39–3–405 et seq.; 

o. Nevada – Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.018 et seq.; 

p. New Hampshire – N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 279:21 et seq.: 

q. New Jersey – N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11–56a4 et seq.; 

r. New Mexico – N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50–4–22 et seq.; 

s. New York – N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 142–3.2 et seq.; 

t. North Carolina – N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 95–25.4 et seq.; 

u. North Dakota – N.D. Admin. Code 46–02–07–02(4) et seq.; 

v. Ohio – Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 et seq.; 

w. Oklahoma – Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 74, § 840–2.15 et seq.; 

x. Oregon – Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 653.055, 653.261 et seq.; 

y. Pennsylvania – 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 333.104 et seq.; 

z. Rhode Island – 28 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 28–12–4.1 et seq.; 

aa. Vermont – Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 384 et seq.; 

bb. Virginia – Va. Code Ann. § 40.1–29.2 et seq.; 

cc. Washington – Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.46.130 et seq.; 

dd. West Virginia – W. Va. Code Ann. § 21–5C–3 et seq.; and 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 32 of 36
33

ee. Wisconsin – Wis. Admin. Code DWD § 274.015 et seq.

128. Cross Country maintains a uniform, company-wide policy and practice of 

miscalculating the overtime rate, and said policy is willful in nature and not the result of a good 

faith mistake. 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE 

CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 

On Behalf of Plaintiff Summers and the California Class 

129. Plaintiff Summers hereby repeats, reiterates, and incorporates by reference each of 

the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if set forth herein. 

130. The California Unfair Competition Law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or 

fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Cross Country has 

engaged in business acts and practices that, as alleged above, constitute unfair competition in 

violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. 

Unlawful 

131. Cross Country’s unlawful conduct under the Unfair Competition Law includes, but 

is not limited to, violating California Labor Code § 970, and the other statutes and regulations 

alleged herein. 

Unfair 

132. Cross Country’s business practices, as alleged herein, violate the “unfair” prong of 

the Unfair Competition Law because they resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the California 

Class being misled and denied pay for wages they earned and were promised pursuant to their 

binding employment agreements. Further, said business practices offend established public policy 

and are immoral, unethical, and unscrupulous or substantially injurious to employees. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 33 of 36
34

133. Any reasons, justifications, or motives that Cross Country may offer for the 

practices described herein are outweighed by the gravity of harm to the victims. The injuries 

suffered by Plaintiffs and the California Class are substantial and are not outweighed by any 

countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

Fraudulent 

134. Cross Country’s conduct, as described herein, is fraudulent because it is likely to 

deceive members of the public. 

135. Cross Country’s bait-and-switch tactics were indeed calculated to deceive—and in 

fact did deceive—Plaintiffs and members of the California Class into accepting travel nursing 

assignments at a promised rate of pay, only to have that promised rate reduced after they had 

undertaken obligations under the agreement. 

136. Plaintiffs and members of the California Class have standing to pursue this cause 

of action because they suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Cross Country’s 

misconduct described herein. 

137. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and the California Class seek restitutionary disgorgement 

from Cross Country and public injunctive relief prohibiting Cross Country from engaging in the 

unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct alleged herein. 

138. Plaintiffs and members of the California Class seek all monetary and non-monetary 

relief allowed by law, including restitution of all profits stemming from Cross Country’s unfair, 

unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; declaratory relief; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; injunctive relief; and other appropriate 

equitable relief. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 34 of 36
35

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully request 

that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Cross Country as follows: 

A. That the Court certify this action as a class action, proper and maintainable pursuant 

to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; declare that Plaintiffs are proper class 

representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel; 

B. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the Class or Subclass(es) compensatory, 

consequential, general, nominal, and statutory (along with any other damages available at law) to 

the extent permitted by law and in an amount to be determined at trial; 

C. That the Court issue notice to all similarly situated employees of Cross Country 

informing them of their right to file consents to join the FLSA portion of this action; 

D. That the Court award Plaintiff Summers and all similarly situated employees 

damages for unpaid overtime wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

E. That the Court award Plaintiff Summers and all similarly situated employees 

liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

F. That the Court award to Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action, along 

with reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses as provided by law; 

G. That the Court award pre-and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; 

H. That the Court disgorge any unjust enrichment or revenue Cross Country gained 

from its unjust business practices, including the practice of making mid-contract take-it-or-leaveit demands without fair and just compensation; and 

I. That the Court grant all such other relief as it deems just and proper. 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 35 of 36
36

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all claims 

so triable. 

Dated: August 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted: 

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 

/s/ Gregg I. Shavitz 

Gregg I. Shavitz 

951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Telephone: (561) 447-8888 

Fax: (561) 447-8831 

gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com 

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

J. Austin Moore* 

Alexander T. Ricke* 

K. Ross Merrill* 

*pro hac vice applications pending or forthcoming 

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 

Kansas City, Missouri 64112 

Telephone: (816) 714-7100 

Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 

moore@stuevesiegel.com 

ricke@stuevesiegel.com 

merrill@stuevesiegel.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and 

Collective 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

with the Court’s CM/ECF system on August 12, 2022, which will effectuate service on all counsel 

of record. 

 /s/ Gregg I. Shavitz 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2022 Page 36 of 36