Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

YAINIER E. MENDIBURT

and other similarly-situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s), 

v.

S1 SECURITY GROUP INC,

and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually,

Defendants,

____________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C § 216(b))

COMES NOW the Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT, and other similarly situated

individuals, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendants S1 SECURITY 

GROUP INC, and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually and alleges:

JURISDICTION VENUES AND PARTIES

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of 

the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) ("the Act").

2. Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT is a resident of Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff is a

covered employee for purposes of the Act.

3. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP INC (hereinafter S1 SECURITY GROUP, or 

Defendant) is a Florida corporation having its main place of business in Miami-Dade 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 13

County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendant. S1 SECURITY GROUP was

engaged in interstate commerce. 

4. The individual Defendant ROLANDO E. PALMA was and is now the owner/president and 

manager of S1 SECURITY GROUP. Defendant ROLANDO E. PALMA was the employer 

of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the "Fair 

Labor Standards Act" [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)] and is jointly liable for Plaintiff's damages.

5. All the actions raised in this Complaint took place in Dade County, Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Court.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT to recover from 

Defendants half-time overtime wages, liquidated damages, retaliatory damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 

29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the "FLA or the "ACT").

7. Corporate Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP is a Florida corporation that provides 

security services to businesses, residential communities, construction sites, retailers, and 

related security services such as executive bodyguard protection.

8. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA employed Plaintiff 

YAINIER E. MENDIBURT as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly security employee 

approximately from February 15, 2021, to May 15, 2022, or 65 weeks. 

9. Plaintiff had duties as a security officer. He worked at various security posts, but he 

regularly reported to the Defendants' offices located at 1645 NW 79 Avenue, Miami, Fl 

33126. 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13

10. Plaintiff worked under the supervision of the owner of the business, ROLANDO E. 

PALMA, and Director Neiver Ruiz. 

11. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, but he worked 7 days 

per week shifts of 12 hours daily. Plaintiff completed a minimum average of 84 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunchtime.

12. Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. 

However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

13. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

14. Therefore, during the relevant period of time, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that she 

worked in excess of forty (40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)).

15. Plaintiff never agreed with the lack of payment for overtime hours, and he complained

multiple times about unpaid overtime hours to his superiors. Director Neiver Ruiz stated 

that Defendants do not pay for overtime hours.

16. As a result, Defendants began to lower Plaintiff's working hours. Director Neiver Ruiz told 

Plaintiff's co-workers that he would be terminated soon due to his continuous complaints 

about unpaid overtime hours. Director Neiver Ruiz sent Plaintiff texts stating: "If you don't 

like it, you can leave."

17. On or about May 15, 2022, Plaintiff was forced to leave his employment because his 

working hours were reduced from 84/90 to 26 hours per week. Plaintiff could not live with 

26 hours per week.

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13

18. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will provide a good-faith

estimate of unpaid half-time overtime based on a workweek of 84 hours. 

19. Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT seeks to recover half-time overtime hours, liquidated 

damages, retaliatory damages, and any other relief as allowable by law. 

20. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees and/or 

former employees of Defendants who are and were subject to the unlawful payroll practices 

and procedures of Defendants and were not paid minimum wages and/or overtime wages 

at the rate of time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in 

excess of forty. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

21. Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-20 above as if set out in full herein. 

22. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT as a collective 

action to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the "FLSA or the "ACT"), on behalf of Plaintiff and all 

other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff ("the asserted class") and 

who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after February

2021, (the "material time") without being compensated "at a rate not less than one and a 

half times the regular rate at which he is employed."

23. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP was and is engaged in interstate commerce as defined 

in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s) (1)(A). Defendant provides 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13

security services and, through its business activity, affects interstate commerce. Defendant

has more than two employees recurrently engaged in commerce or the production of goods

or services for commerce by regularly and recurrently using the instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce to accept and solicit funds from non-Florida sources; by using 

electronic devices to authorize credit card transactions. Upon information and belief, the 

annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was at all times material hereto in excess 

of $500,000 per annum. Defendant's business activities involve those to which the Fair 

Labor Standards Act applies. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

24. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce. Particularly, Plaintiff was a security employee, and through his daily activities, 

Plaintiff provided security services to enterprises involved in interstate commerce. 

Therefore, there is FLSA individual coverage.

25. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA employed Plaintiff 

YAINIER E. MENDIBURT as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly security employee 

approximately from February 15, 2021, to May 15, 2022, or 65 weeks. 

26. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, but he worked 7 days 

per week, shifts of 12 hours daily. Plaintiff completed a minimum average of 84 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunchtime.

27. Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. 

However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

28. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 13

29. Therefore, during the relevant period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime 

wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that she worked in 

excess of forty (40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

(29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)).

30. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks without paystubs providing basic information 

about the number of days and hours worked, wage rate, etc.

31. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated, and the compensation actually paid to such employees should be in the possession 

and custody of Defendants. However, upon information and belief, Defendants did not 

maintain accurate time records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees. 

32. Defendants violated the record-keeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

33. Defendants never posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and 

Federal Law, to inform employees of their Federal rights to overtime and minimum wage 

payments. Defendants violated the Posting requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

34. Prior to the completion of discovery and the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, at the time of 

the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff's good faith estimate of unpaid half-time overtime 

wages is as follows:

*Please note that this amount is based on a preliminary calculation and that these figures 

could be subject to modification as discovery could dictate.

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid O/T wages:

Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Sixty Dollars and 00/100 ($17,160.00)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Total time of employment: 65 weeks

Relevant weeks of employment: 65 weeks 

 Total number of hours worked: 84 hours weekly

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13

 Total number of unpaid O/T hours: 44 O/T hours

 Regular rate: $12.00 rate paid x 1.5=$18.00

 O/T rate: $18.00-$12.00 O/T rate paid=$6.00 half-time

 

 Half-time $6.00 x 44 O/T hours=$264.00 weekly x 65 weeks=$17,160.00

 Nature of wages (e.g., overtime or straight time):

 This amount represents unpaid half-time overtime wages.

35. At all times material hereto, the Employers/Defendants failed to comply with Title 29 

U.S.C. §207 (a) (1), in that Plaintiff and those similarly-situated performed services and 

worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act. Still, no provision was made 

by Defendants to properly pay them at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked in 

excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in said Act. 

36. Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act concerning 

the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remain

owing Plaintiff and those similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement 

of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants as set forth above, and Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

37. At times mentioned, individual Defendant ROLANDO E. PALMA was the 

owner/president and manager of S1 SECURITY GROUP. Defendant ROLANDO E. 

PALMA was the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of 

Section 3(d) of the "Fair Labor Standards Act" [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that this individual 

Defendant acted directly in the interests of S1 SECURITY GROUP in relation to its 

employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant ROLANDO E. 

PALMA had financial and operational control of the corporation, determining the terms 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13

and working conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and he is jointly

and severally liable for Plaintiff's damages. 

38. Defendants S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA willfully and 

intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his

regular rate, as required by the law of the United States, and remain owing Plaintiff these

overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants as set 

forth above. 

39. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent him in this 

action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorney's fee. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated respectfully request that this Honorable 

Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT and other similarly situated

individuals and against the Defendants S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. 

PALMA, based on Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT actual damages in the amount shown to 

be due for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly, 

with interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just and/or 

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 13

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by 

jury.

COUNT II

FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 215 (a)(3) 

RETALIATORY CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

40. Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-20 of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

41. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP was and is engaged in interstate commerce as defined 

in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s) (1)(A). Upon information and 

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employers/Defendants was at all times material 

hereto in excess of $500,000 per annum. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant's business 

activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. Therefore, there is 

FLSA enterprise coverage.

42. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce. Particularly, Plaintiff was a security employee, and through his daily activities, 

Plaintiff provided security services to enterprises involved in interstate commerce. 

43. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) (1) states, "if an employer employs an employee for more than forty 

hours in any work week, the employer must compensate the employee for hours in excess 

of forty at the rate of at least one and one-halftimes the employee's regular rate..."

44. Likewise, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) states... it shall be unlawful for any person— "to discharge 

or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed 

any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to 

this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding,......"

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13

45. Defendant S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA employed Plaintiff 

YAINIER E. MENDIBURT as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly security employee 

approximately from February 15, 2021, to May 15, 2022, or 65 weeks. 

46. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, but he worked 7 days 

per week shifts of 12 hours daily. Plaintiff completed a minimum average of 84 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunchtime.

47. Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. 

However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

48. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

49. Therefore, during the relevant period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime 

wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that she worked in 

excess of forty (40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

(29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)).

50. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks without paystubs providing basic information 

about the number of days and hours worked, wage rate, etc.

51. Plaintiff never agreed with the lack of payment for overtime hours, and he complained

multiple times about unpaid overtime hours to his superiors. Director Neiver Ruiz stated 

that Defendants do not pay for overtime hours.

52. These complaints constituted protected activity under 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3).

53. After Plaintiff began to complain about unpaid overtime hours, he suffered harassment at 

his workplace.

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13

54. In retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants began to lower Plaintiff's working 

hours. Director Neiver Ruiz told Plaintiff's co-workers that he would be terminated soon 

due to his continuous complaints about unpaid overtime hours. Director Neiver Ruiz sent 

Plaintiff texts stating: "If you don't like it, you can leave."

55. On or about May 15, 2022, Plaintiff was forced to leave his employment because his 

working hours were reduced from 84/90 to 26 hours per week. Plaintiff could not live with 

26 hours per week.

56. Plaintiff was forced to leave his employment because he was being mistreated. He was 

working up to seven days per week with a minimum of 84 hours without payment for 

overtime hours. On top of that, he was suffering from a hostile working environment. 

57. Consequently, on or about May 15, 2022, Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT was 

constructively discharged from his employment with Defendants in retaliation to his 

complaints about missing overtime payment. Defendants deliberately created unfair 

working conditions and harassed Plaintiff so that any reasonable person could not accept, 

and he was forced to resign. 

58. At all times during his employment, Plaintiff performed his work satisfactorily. There was 

no reason other than a retaliatory action to terminate Plaintiff's employment with Defendant 

constructively.

59. The termination of Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT by the Defendants was directly 

and proximately caused by Defendants' unjustified retaliation against Plaintiff because he 

complained about overtime payment, in violation of Federal Law.

60. Moreover, Plaintiff's termination came just in temporal proximity after Plaintiff's 

participation in protected activity. 

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13

61. At times mentioned, individual Defendant ROLANDO E. PALMA was the 

owner/president and manager of S1 SECURITY GROUP. Defendant ROLANDO E. 

PALMA was the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of 

Section 3(d) of the "Fair Labor Standards Act" [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that this individual 

Defendant acted directly in the interests of S1 SECURITY GROUP in relation to its 

employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant ROLANDO E. 

PALMA had financial and operational control of the corporation, determining the terms 

and working conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and he is jointly 

and severally liable for Plaintiff's damages. 

62. Defendants S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA willfully and 

maliciously retaliated against Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT by engaging in a 

retaliatory action that was materially averse to a reasonable employee and with the purpose 

of dissuading Plaintiff from exercising his rights under 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). 

63. As described above, the motivating factor that caused Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT 

to be terminated was his complaints seeking overtime wages from the Defendants. In other 

words, Plaintiff would not have been constructively discharged but for his complaints about

overtime wages.

64. The Defendants' adverse actions against Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT were in 

direct violation of 29 U.S.C. 215 (a) (3), and as a direct result, Plaintiff has been damaged.

65. Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT has retained the law offices of the undersigned 

attorney to represent him in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorney's fees 

and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court:

A. Enter judgment declaring that the firing of Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT by 

Defendants S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. PALMA was an unlawful act 

of retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. 215 (a) (3).

B. Enter judgment against Defendants S1 SECURITY GROUP and ROLANDO E. 

PALMA awarding Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT liquidated damages in an 

amount equal to the amount awarded as consequential damages;

C. For all back wages from the date of discharge to the present date and an equal amount 

of back wages as liquidated damages

D. Enter judgment awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this suit; and

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff YAINIER E. MENDIBURT demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of right 

by jury.

Dated: October 13, 2022

 Respectfully submitted,

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23319-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 13 of 13