UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO:

JOAN A. TANOFSKY, and all others similarly

situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),

Plaintiff(s),

v.

AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, LLC

d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY

Defendant

 /

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOAN A. TANOFSKY (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of herself and all others similarly 

situated, files the following Collective Action Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial

against Defendant, AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, LLC, d/b/a AMERICAN 

RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY (“Defendant”), and alleges the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated sales 

representatives federal overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) during 

various workweeks within the previous three (3) years. This action arises under the FLSA, 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–216, to recover all overtime wages that Defendant refused to pay 

Plaintiff and all other similarly situated sales representatives as a result of Defendant’s unlawful 

pay policies. 

PARTIES

2. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Beach County, 

Florida, over the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris. 

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

3. During all times material hereto, Defendant was a Florida limited liability company 

located and transacting business within Palm Beach County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court.

4. Defendant is headquartered at 901 Yamato Road, Suite 100E, Boca Raton, FL 

33431. 

5. During her employment period, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its office located 

at 901 Yamato Road, Suite 100E, Boca Raton, FL 33431 and from her home.

6. During all times material hereto, Defendant was vested with control and decisionmaking authority over the scheduling, hiring, firing, day-to-day operations, and pay practices that 

pertained to Plaintiff. 

7. During all times material hereto Defendant also managed and controlled Plaintiff 

and administered Defendant’s pay practices. 

8. Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), during all 

times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. All acts and/or omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Palm Beach

County, Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

10. Defendant regularly transacts business in Palm Beach County, Florida, and 

jurisdiction is therefore proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 

11. Venue is also proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR DEFENDANT

12. Defendant operates a nationwide home appliance warranty company that is based

out of Boca Raton, Florida. 

13. Defendant’s home appliance warranties provide customers with local handymen to 

assist with broken or malfunctioning home appliances. 

14. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a sales representative at their call center in 

Boca Raton, Florida, on or about August 2012. 

15. During Plaintiff’s employment period, her primary duty was to sell a variety of 

different home warranties to Defendant’s customers. 

16. During her employment period, Plaintiff regularly worked between forty (40) and 

fifty (50) hours per week. 

17. In or around 2019, Defendant paid Plaintiff $500 per week, plus non-discretionary 

commissions. 

18. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff, or any other similarly situated sales representative, 

overtime wages when sales representatives worked more than forty (40) hours per week in 2019. 

19. In or around January 2020, Defendant began to pay Plaintiff $13 per hour, plus nondiscretionary commissions. 

20. Beginning in or around April 2020, Defendant began to pay Plaintiff on a 

commission-only basis. 

21. In or around January 2021, Defendant began paying Plaintiff $15 per hour, plus 

non-discretionary commissions. 

22. Beginning in or around February 2022, Defendant began paying Plaintiff $16 per 

hour, plus non-discretionary commissions.

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

23. Plaintiff’s last day working for Defendant was on or about October 4, 2022. 

NON-DISCRETIONARY COMMISSION COLLECTIVE

24. During the previous three (3) years, Defendant enacted and enforced a companywide incentive program which provided non-discretionary commissions to Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated sales representatives in an effort to encourage and increase work productivity

and sales. 

25. Defendant implemented this non-discretionary commission incentive to Plaintiff 

and similarly situated sales representatives to induce them to work more steadily, more rapidly, 

and to make more sales. 

26. The non-discretionary commission paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated sales 

representatives was based upon the number of sales generated by these employees

27. The non-discretionary commissions paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated sales 

representatives under this incentive program were required to be included in the calculation of 

sales representatives’ regular hourly rate to determine the applicable overtime wage premium. See 

29 C.F.R. § 778.211.

28. During the previous three (3) years, Defendant failed to include non-discretionary 

commissions when calculating regular hourly rates for sale representatives when they worked 

more than 40 hours in a workweek.

29. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following collective of similarly 

situated employees:

All sales representatives employed by Defendant in Florida 

during the previous 3-years who worked more than 40 hours in 

a workweek and whose non-discretionary commissions were not 

included to compute the proper overtime wage premium.

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

30. Collective members are treated equally and similarly in that they were denied 

proper federal overtime wages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful policy which fails to compensate 

non-exempt sales representatives statutory overtime wages when they work more than forty (40) 

hours per week and receive non-discretionary commissions. 

31. Defendant’s pay policies uniformly lead to overtime wage violations with respect 

to each and every sales representative who worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week and also 

earned a non-discretionary commission. 

32. Defendant has employed dozens, and potentially hundreds, of sales representatives

throughout Florida who were not paid overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA and pertinent 

federal regulations. 

33. Plaintiff and the collective members were subjected to the same employment 

policies during the previous three (3) years. 

FLSA COVERAGE

34. Defendant is covered under the FLSA through enterprise coverage, as Defendant 

was engaged in interstate commerce during all pertinent times in which Plaintiff was employed. 

More specifically, Defendant engaged in interstate commerce by virtue of the fact that its business 

activities involved those to which the FLSA applies. Defendant’s business and Plaintiff’s work for 

it affected interstate commerce because the materials and goods that Plaintiff used on a constant 

and/or continuous basis moved through interstate commerce prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s 

use of the same. 

35. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff, and various other similarly 

situated employees handled and worked with various goods and/or materials that moved through 

interstate commerce, including, but not limited to the following: cell phones, telephones, extension 

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

cords, pencils, pens, paper, tape, keyboards, computers, cables, stamps, markers, staplers, staples, 

invoices, head sets, extension cords, masks, boxes, envelopes, hand sanitizer, etc. 

36. Defendant also regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the relevant 

time period, who handled the same or similar goods and materials handled by Plaintiff, thus 

making Defendant’s business an enterprise covered by the FLSA. 

37. Defendant grossed or did business in excess of $500,000.00 in the years 2019, 2020, 

2021 and is expected to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in the year 2022.

38. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was regularly and recurrently 

engaged in an instrumentality of interstate commerce and subject to individual coverage, as that 

term is defined by the FLSA. More specifically, Plaintiff used the interstate telephone system to 

regularly and recurrently speak with Defendant’s customers who resided outside of the state of 

Florida over the phone. Plaintiff also regularly and recurrently sent and received correspondences 

to and from Defendant’s customers and potential customers outside of Florida during her 

employment period. 

39. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff (i) performed non-exempt work; 

(ii) did not have supervisory authority over any individuals; (iii) did not make any decisions of 

importance on behalf of Defendant, and (iv) was not required to possess any advanced training, 

skill, or prolonged education in order to perform any of her primary duties and responsibilities. 

40. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of 

Defendant, within the meaning of the FLSA. 

COUNT I – FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(Non-Discretionary Commission Collective)

41. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 40 as though set forth 

fully herein.

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

42. Plaintiff alleges this Collective Action Complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor 

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

43. Defendant failed to include non-discretionary commissions paid to sales 

representatives (including Plaintiff) when Defendant computed overtime wage premiums during 

the previous three (3) years. 

44. Defendant improperly calculated overtime wage premiums during all times 

material hereto. 

45. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees oneand-one-half times the proper regular hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (40) in one or 

more weeks of their employment. 

46. Plaintiff seeks certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following similarly 

situated Collective for Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages: 

All sales representatives employed by Defendant in Florida 

during the previous 3-years who worked more than 40 hours in 

a workweek and whose non-discretionary commissions were not 

included to compute the proper overtime wage premium.

47. Plaintiff claims the applicable federal overtime wage rate for all of the unpaid hours 

over forty (40) that she worked during her employment period. 

48. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff federal overtime 

wages as required by the FLSA, as Defendant knew or should have known of the FLSA’s overtime 

wage requirements. 

49. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle 

Plaintiff to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

50. Moreover, because of Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of the 

FLSA, the statute of limitations in this action should be three (3) years as opposed to two (2) years. 

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOAN A. TANOFSKY, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, 

LLC, d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY, and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated 

damages; (b) liquidated damages; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and any and all such 

further relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT II – FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(2019 Violations Solely on Behalf of Plaintiff)

51. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 40 as though set forth 

fully herein.

52. Plaintiff alleges this claim pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

53. Defendant paid Plaintiff a salary plus commissions in 2019; however, Defendant 

failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages when she worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in 

2019. 

54. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee in 2019. 

55. Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours per week during the relevant time 

period in 2019. 

56. Plaintiff claims the applicable federal overtime wage rate for all of the unpaid hours 

over forty (40) that she worked in 2019. 

57. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff federal overtime 

wages as required by the FLSA, as Defendant knew or should have known of the FLSA’s overtime 

wage requirements. 

58. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle 

Plaintiff to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

59. Because Defendant willfully and/or intentionally violated of the FLSA, the statute 

of limitations should be three (3) years as opposed to two (2) years. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOAN A. TANOFSKY, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, 

LLC, d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY, and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated 

damages; (b) liquidated damages; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and any and all such 

further relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOAN A. TANOFSKY, demands a trial by jury on all appropriate claims. 

Dated: October 28, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

JAKE S. BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on October 

28, 2022. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 9:22-cv-81657-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 9