UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No: 

PRITPAL OBEROI, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

HUBLOT OF AMERICA, INC., 

a Florida Profit Corporation, 

Defendant. 

 / 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, PRITPAL OBEROI, (herein referred to as “Plaintiff” and/or “OBEROI”), by and 

through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, HUBLOT OF 

AMERICA, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” and/or "HUBLOT"), and says: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought against the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. 

(hereinafter the “Fair Labor Standards Act”, the “FLSA” or the “Act”) and 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et. 

seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Plaintiff was employed 

by Defendants in this District; because Defendants, at all material times, conducted and continue 

to conduct business in the Southern District of Florida; because the acts that give rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims within the Southern District of Florida; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c); and 

because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 9
4. Plaintiff says that all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have 

heretofore been performed or have been waived. 

PARTIES

5. OBEROI is a resident of Broward County, Florida. During all times relevant to this 

Complaint, OBEROI was employed by Defendants as a customer service representative. Plaintiff 

was therefore an “employee” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e) and covered as an individual under 

the FLSA. To wit: OBEROI was a customer service representative and worked with products that 

were transported across state lines. 

6. Defendant HUBLOT is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of 

the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Broward

County, Florida. HUBLOT has, at all times material hereto, conducted substantial and continuous 

business within the Southern District of Florida, and is subject to the laws of the United States and 

the State of Florida. 

7. Specifically, HUBLOT is a high end watch company and its employees, including 

OBEROI, regularly handled goods which were transported across state lines. 

8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have had two (2) or more 

employees who have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials that 

have been moved in or produced for commerce. 

9. HUBLOT upon knowledge and belief, has gross revenue which exceeds $500,000 

for each of the past three (3) years and utilizes goods in the flow of commerce across state lines.

HUBLOT is therefore covered as an “enterprise” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s). 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 9
10. HUBLOT, upon knowledge and belief, employed 50 or more employees for each 

working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in 2021 or 2022, and therefore is a 

covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i).

11. By February 2022, OBEROI had been employed by Defendant for over 12 months, 

and she had performed at least 1,250 hours of service for Defendant during the previous 12-month 

period. Plaintiff was therefore an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2). 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. OBEROI worked for Defendant from March 2003 until August 12, 2022. 

13. Plaintiff was non-exempt employee of Defendant and is subject to the payroll 

practices and procedures set forth hereinafter. 

14. Plaintiff regularly worked, with minimal exception1, in excess of forty (40) hours 

during one or more workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this complaint. 

15. During her employment, OBEROI regularly worked approximately forty-five (45) 

to fifty (50) hours per week. 

16. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was routinely only paid for 

forty (40) hours per week despite working up to forty-five (45) to fifty (50) hours per week. 

17. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 

201 – 219 in that OBEROI performed services for Defendant for which no provision was made to 

properly pay overtime for those hours worked over forty (40) in a work-week. 

18. Defendant and its representatives knew that OBEROI was working overtime, and 

that Federal law requires employees to be compensated at time and one-half per hour for overtime 

pay.

 

1 Plaintiff did not work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek from March 2020 until August 2020, due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 3 of 9
19. Defendant maintained complete control over the hours Plaintiff worked and the pay 

she was to receive. 

20. In the course of employment with Defendant, OBEROI worked the number of hours 

required of her, but was not paid time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours during a workweek. 

21. OBEROI averaged approximately forty-five (45) to fifty (50) hours per week

during the relevant time frame of each and every week for the proceeding three (3) calendar years 

of the filing of this Complaint with the exception of the time period of March 2020 through August 

2020.

22. Defendant willfully failed to record all time worked by OBEROI and/or willfully 

misclassified OBEROI as exempt from overtime. 

23. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours actually worked by Plaintiff 

are in the possession, custody, and control of Defendant.

24. In February 2022, OBEROI took a short amount of time off from work when her 

husband had surgery. 

25. OBEROI was told by her director to let her know if she needed additional time off 

to care for her husband. 

26. Following her husband’s surgery, OBEROI requested permission to work from 

home or additional time off to care for her husband while he was recovering. 

27. OBEROI’s supervisor denied her request to care for her husband as he recovered 

from surgery. 

28. HUBLOT was aware of OBEROI’s request to care for her husband as he recovered 

from surgery. 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 4 of 9
29. HUBLOT knew or should have known that OBEROI’s request may have been for 

an FMLA-qualifying reason which triggered HUBLOT’s obligation to provide OBEROI with 

notice of her rights and responsibilities under the FMLA. 

30. HUBLOT failed to provide OBEROI the required notice of her rights and 

responsibilities under the FMLA. 

31. Due to HUBLOT’s failure to provide OBEROI of her rights and responsibilities 

under the FMLA, HUBLOT effectively interfered with OBEROI’s ability to take FMLA leave to 

care for her husband while he recovered from surgery. 

32. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on her behalf 

and has agreed to pay it a reasonable fee for its services. 

33. Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if she is the prevailing 

party in this Action. 

COUNT ONE – VIOLATION OF FLSA / OVERTIME

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1–33 as fully set forth herein.

35. Since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant has willfully 

violated the provisions of §7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 207] by employing workers engaged in 

commerce for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating them for their employment 

in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rates for which they 

were employed. 

36. Specifically, OBEROI worked an average of forty-five (45) to fifty (50) hours 

during each work week in which she was employed with minimal exception, but was not 

compensated at one and one half times her regular rate. 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 5 of 9
37. Plaintiff was not exempted from the overtime provision of the Act pursuant to the 

provisions of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), in that she were neither bona fide executive, 

administrative, or professional employees. 

38. Defendant has knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at time and one half

of her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week during the relevant 

time period. 

39. By reason of the said intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff

has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

40. Defendant knew Plaintiff was not exempt from overtime but refused to pay her at 

a rate of time and one-half her regular rate.

41. As a result of Defendant's willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to

liquidated damages.

42. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent her in this action, and 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and

costs incurred in this action from Defendants.

WHEREFORE, for workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this Complaint, 

Plaintiff PRITPAL OBEROI demands judgment for:

a) Overtime payment, wages, salary, lost benefits, and any other compensation 

denied or lost to Plaintiff by reason of Defendant's violation of the FLSA.

b) Interest on the amount found due;

c) Liquidated damages;

d) A jury trial on all issues so triable;

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 6 of 9
e) Assessment against Defendant of reasonable costs and reasonable 

attorney’s fees of this action; and 

f) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FMLA

(INTERFERENCE) 

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 33 as fully set forth herein. 

44. Plaintiff was eligible for FMLA leave to care for her husband following his surgery 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(A). 

45. Defendant is a covered employer as defined by 29 U.S.C § 2611(4)(A)(i) in that, 

upon knowledge and belief, Defendant employed 50 or more employees for each working day 

during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in 2022 or 2021. 

46. In February 2022, Plaintiff requested to work from home and/or time off to care for 

her husband as he recovered from surgery. 

47. Under the FMLA, 29 USC § 2614(a), Plaintiff had the right to take leave to care 

for her husband, and be restored to her position. 

48. Upon knowledge that Plaintiff’s request for leave may be for an FMLA-qualifying 

reason, Defendant was required to notify Plaintiff of her rights and responsibilities under the 

FMLA within five (5) days. 

49. Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff of her rights and responsibilities under the 

FMLA which interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA. 

50. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, 

and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its employees. 

51. Defendant’s conduct was not done in good faith and Plaintiff is therefore entitled 

to liquidated damages pursuant to the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a). 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 7 of 9
52. Plaintiff has retained the services of the undersigned firm and is obligated to pay 

attorney’s fees should she recover damages from Defendant.

53. Should Plaintiff prevail, Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded reasonable attorney’s 

fees and the costs of this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PRITPAL requests judgment for: 

a. Wages, salary, lost benefits, and any other compensation denied or lost to 

Plaintiff by reason of Defendant’s violation of the FMLA, all as provided in 29 

U.S.C. § 2617; 

b. Interest on the amount found due; 

c. Liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii); 

d. Plaintiff’s cost of suit herein together with reasonable attorney’s fees incurred 

in this action; and

e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff, PRITPAL OBEROI, hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues contained herein 

so triable as a matter of right. 

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 8 of 9
Dated: November 11, 2022. 

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112

 Plantation, Florida 33324

 (954) 914-7890 (Office)

 (855) 423-5298 (Facsimile)

 

 By: /s/ Charles M. Eiss 

 CHARLES M. EISS, Esq.

 Fla. Bar #612073

 chuck@icelawfirm.com

 SHANNA WALL, Esq. 

Fla. Bar #0051672 

shanna@icelawfirm.com

 JORGE GONZALEZ, Esq.

 Fla. Bar #0051672 

 jorge@icelawfirm.com

Case 0:22-cv-62098-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 9 of 9