Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

JOSETTE ZAMORA,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v. 

EL TAQUITO CORP,

OSVALDO NAVARRO

and ANGELICA OSORIO, 

Defendants,

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA, by and through the undersigned 

counsel, and hereby sues Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and 

ANGELICA OSORIO, individually, and alleges: 

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

retaliation under the United States laws. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 U.S.C. § 201-219, § 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, "the Act," (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement).

2. Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA is a resident of Miami-Dade County, within the jurisdiction of 

this Honorable Court. Therefore, Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

3. Defendant EL TAQUITO CORP (hereinafter EL TAQUITO, or Corporate Defendant) is a 

Florida Corporation having a place of business in Miami-Dade County, within the jurisdiction 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 17

of this Court. At all times, Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce 3(d) of the 

"Fair Labor Standards Act" [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)].

4. Individual Defendants OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO are the 

owners/partners/officers and managers of Defendant Corporation EL TAQUITO. These 

Individual Defendants are the employers 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)].

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

jurisdiction of this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendants

minimum wages and overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, 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 "FLA or the "ACT") on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other 

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

in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after May 2022, (the "material 

time") without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

7. Defendant EL TAQUITO is a Mexican restaurant and bar. The business has several locations 

in Dade and Broward Counties.

8. Defendant is a Mexican restaurant and bar. Defendant had more than two employees 

recurrently engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce. Defendant uses 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was always in excess of $500,000 

per annum. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

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

commerce. Plaintiff and those similarly situated through their daily activities regularly 

participated in interstate commerce by handling credit card transactions. In addition, Plaintiff 

regularly handled and worked on goods and materials that were produced for commerce and 

moved across State lines at any time during the business. Therefore, there is FLSA individual 

coverage.

10. Defendants EL TAQUITO, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO employed 

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from 

May 01, 2022, to September 04, 2022, or 18 weeks.

11. Plaintiff worked at EL TAQUITO located at 3410 Main Hwy., Coconut Grove, FL 33133.

12. Plaintiff was a tipped employee earning $9.00 plus tips, and she had duties as a server, cashier, 

and cleaning worker. 

13. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked six days per week, a minimum 

average of 49 hours. Plaintiff was paid for an average of 43 hours at her regular rate. The 

remaining hours were 6 off-the-clock hours that were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, not even 

at the minimum wage rate, as required by law.

14. Every week Plaintiff was paid without any paystub or record showing the number of days and 

hours worked, job classification, wage rate, tips received, employment taxes withheld, etc.

15. Defendants fired Plaintiff because she complained about unpaid off-the-clock overtime hours 

and because she refused to pay $550.00 to cover the business' high water bill caused by a water 

leak.

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17

16. On or about September 04, 2022, Plaintiff went to the restaurant to pick up her last check, but 

she received only a check for $138.22. Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's wages $550.00 to 

cover utility expenses of the business. This illegal deduction reduced Plaintiff's wages below 

the required minimum wage.

17. Plaintiff clocked in and out following Defendants' instructions, and they could track the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

18. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime hours at 

the rate of time and one-half her 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).

and 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

19. At times mentioned, individual Defendants OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA 

OSORIO were the owners/partners and directed operations of EL TAQUITO. Defendants 

OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO were the employers of Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated individuals within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the "Fair Labor Standards 

Act" [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, these individual Defendants acted directly in the interests 

of EL TAQUITO concerning its employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 

Defendants OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO had financial and operational 

control of the business, provided Plaintiff with her work schedule, and they are jointly and 

severally liable for Plaintiff's damages. 

20. Plaintiff seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime hours, retaliatory damages, liquidated 

damages, as well as any other relief as allowable by law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17

21. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her individually

and on behalf of the asserted class in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys'

fees and costs. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

22. Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-21

above as if set out in full herein. 

23. Defendants EL TAQUITO, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO employed 

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from 

May 01, 2022, to September 04, 2022, or 18 weeks.

24. Plaintiff was a tipped employee earning $9.00 plus tips, and she had duties as a server, cashier, 

and cleaning worker. 

25. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked six days per week. Plaintiff had an 

irregular schedule, and she worked on Mondays from 12:00 PM to 10:00 PM (10 hours). On 

Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Plaintiff worked from 6:00 PM to 12:00 AM (6 hours each day), 

and on Thursdays, Friday, and Saturdays, Plaintiff worked from 7:00 PM to 2:00 AM (7 hours 

each day). Plaintiff completed a total of 43 scheduled hours.

26. However, every day Plaintiff worked 1 off-the-clock hour. Plaintiff was required to arrive 30 

minutes before the opening of the restaurant, and she was required to stay working 30 minutes 

after the restaurant closed (12:00 or 2:00 AM). Thus, Plaintiff worked 6 off-the-clock hours 

every week. These off-the-clock hours constitute 6 unpaid overtime hours weekly.

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17

27. Thus, Plaintiff worked a total of 49 hours weekly. Plaintiff was paid 40 hours plus 3 overtime 

hours at her regular rate. The remaining 6 hours were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, not even 

at the minimum wage rate as required by law.

28. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants could track the hours worked by Plaintiff and 

other similarly situated individuals.

29. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and 

one-half her 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). and 29 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq.

30. Every week Plaintiff was paid without any paystub or record showing the number of days and 

hours worked, job classification, wage rate, tips received, employment taxes withheld, etc.

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

employees and the compensation paid to such employees should be in the possession and 

custody of Defendants. However, Defendants did not maintain accurate and complete time 

records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees in the asserted class upon 

information and belief. Accordingly, Defendants violated the record-keeping requirements of 

FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

32. 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. 

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

33. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records. Still, before the completion of 

discovery, she will provide a good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages based on her best 

knowledge. Later, Plaintiff will adjust her statement of claim according to discovery.

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17

*Please note that this amount is based on a preliminary calculation that could be

subject to modification as discovery could dictate. 

*Florida's minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. Therefore, as per FLSA 

regulations, the higher minimum wage applies.

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

One Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen Dollars and 80/100 ($1,414.80)

b. Calculation of such wages: 

Total weeks of employment: 18 weeks

Total relevant number of weeks: 18 weeks

Total hours worked: 49 hours weekly

Total O/T hours worked: 9 hours weekly

Regular rate: $9.00 an hour x 1.5=$13.50 O/T rate-$3.02 tip credit=$10.48

 O/T rate: $10.48 an hour

1.- Half-time overtime for 3 hours paid at the regular rate of $9.00 

Relevant weeks: 18 weeks

O/T rate $10.48:2= $5.24 half-time

Half-time $5.24 x 3 O/T hours=$15.72 weekly x 18 weeks=$282.96

2.- Overtime for 6 unpaid off-the-clock O/T hours at the rate of $10.48

Relevant weeks: 18 weeks

O/T rate: $10.48

O/T $10.48 x 6 O/T hours=$62.88 weekly x 18 weeks=$1,131.84

 

Total # 1 and # 2: $1,414.80

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

 This amount represents unpaid overtime wages.

34. At all times material hereto, the Employers/Defendants failed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated performed services and worked more than the maximum hours provided by the Act. 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17

Still, the Defendants made no provision to properly pay her 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. 

35. Defendants knew and showed a reckless disregard of the Act's provisions concerning the 

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

those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

36. Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO 

willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA overtime wages 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. 

37. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from hiring to her last day of 

employment.

38. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in this action 

and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and those similarly situated respectfully request 

that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and other similarly situated and against the 

Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO, 

based on Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages and 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

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17

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.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all issues

triable as of right by jury.

COUNT II:

F.L.S.A. WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION: FAILURE TO 

PAY MINIMUM WAGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

39. Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-19

of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

40. This action is brought by Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and those similarly situated to recover 

from the Employers EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA 

OSORIO unpaid minimum wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, 

costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and 

specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §206. 

41. Defendant EL TAQUITO 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). 

42. Because of the foregoing, Defendant's business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor 

Standards Act applies. 

43. U.S.C. §206 states, "Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek 

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

enterprise engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, wages at the 

following rates: 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17

(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—

(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2008; 

(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and 

(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day

44. Defendants EL TAQUITO, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO employed 

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from 

May 01, 2022, to September 04, 2022, or 18 weeks.

45. Plaintiff was a tipped employee earning $9.00 plus tips, and she had duties as a server, cashier, 

and cleaning worker. 

46. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked six days per week, a minimum 

average of 49 hours. 

47. On or about August 29, 2022, Defendant ANGELICA OSORIO notified Plaintiff that they 

would deduct from Plaintiff's wages $550.00 because a water leak caused a high utility bill for 

excessive water consumption.

48. On or about August 30, 2022, Plaintiff told ANGELICA OSORIO that she should not have to 

pay for the business utility bill. In the alternative, Plaintiff requested ANGELICA OSORIO to 

allow her to pay the bill in installments. ANGELICA OSORIO refused Plaintiff's requests.

49. On September 04, 2022, when Plaintiff went to pick up her check, supervisor Frank Rodriguez 

handed Plaintiff a check for $138.22 and a note for a deduction of $550.00. On top of that, the 

supervisor, Frank Rodriguez, fired Plaintiff. The supervisor told Plaintiff that he was following 

instructions of Defendants OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO.

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17

50. Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's wages $550.00 to cover utility expenses of the business. 

This illegal deduction reduced Plaintiff's wages below the required minimum wage in that 

week.

51. Plaintiff clocked in and out following Defendants' instructions, and they could track the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

52. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular hours in violation of Section 206 

(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC 206(a)(1).

53. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA

and all other similarly situated employees and the compensation paid to such employees should 

be in the possession and custody of Defendants. However, Defendants did not maintain 

accurate and complete time records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees in the 

asserted class upon information and belief. Accordingly, the Defendants violated the recordkeeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

54. 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.

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

filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff's good faith estimate of unpaid wages is as follows:

*Florida minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. As per FLSA regulations, the 

higher minimum wage applies.

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid wages:

Four Hundred Dollars and 00/100 ($400.00)

b. Calculation of such wages: 

Total weeks of employment: 18 weeks

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17

Relevant weeks of employment: 1 week

Total number of hours worked: 40 hours

Total number of unpaid hours: 40 hours

Florida Min. wage rate 2022: $10.00

$10.00 x 40 hours= $400.00

c. Nature of wages:

This amount represents unpaid minimum wages at the Florida min. wage rate

56. Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiffs the statutory minimum wage as 

required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remain owing her back wages. 

Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA concerning 

the payment of unpaid minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Defendants had knowledge of the Plaintiffs' work schedule and the amount of hours they 

worked. 

57. Defendants knew or should have known of the work performed by Plaintiffs and their 

obligation to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs. Defendants willfully and intentionally 

deducted $550.00 from Plaintiff's hourly rate and failed to pay her minimum wages. 

58. As a result of the under-payments of wages alleged above, Defendants are indebted to Plaintiffs 

in the amount of the unpaid minimum wage compensation and an amount equal to the unpaid 

minimum wages as liquidated damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff proposesto obtain the necessary 

records and information to determine the amount of the under-payment to Plaintiffs to be 

promptly taken in this cause.

59. Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO 

willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, as required by the United 

States law, and remain owing Plaintiff these minimum wages since the commencement of 

Plaintiff's employment with Defendants as set forth above.

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17

60. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in this action 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and those similarly situated respectfully

request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and against the Defendants EL TAQUITO 

CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO based on Defendants' willful 

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal 

Regulations; and

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid minimum wages, 

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all issues 

triable as a right by a jury.

COUNT III:

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

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

61. Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-19

of this Complaint as if set out in full herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17

62. Defendant EL TAQUITO 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). 

63. Because of the foregoing, Defendant's business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor 

Standards Act applies. 

64. 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1) states "....an employer must pay a minimum wage of $5.15/hr to an 

employee who is engaged in commerce...." [29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1)].

65. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) (1) states, "if an employer employs an employee for more than forty hours 

in any workweek, the employer must compensate the employee for hours over forty at the rate 

of at least one and one-half times the employee's regular rate..."

66. 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,......"

67. Defendants EL TAQUITO, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO employed 

Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from 

May 01, 2022, to September 04, 2022, or 18 weeks.

68. Plaintiff was a tipped employee earning $9.00 plus tips. Plaintiff had duties as a server, cashier, 

and cleaning worker. 

69. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked six days per week, a minimum 

average of 49 hours. Plaintiff was paid for an average of 43 hours at her regular rate. The 

remaining hours were 6 off-the-clock hours that were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, not even 

at the minimum wage rate, as required by law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17

70. Plaintiff clocked in and out following Defendants' instructions, and they could track the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

71. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and 

one-half her 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). and 29 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq.

72. On or about August 29, 2022, Defendant ANGELICA OSORIO notified Plaintiff that they 

would deduct from Plaintiff's wages $550.00 because there was a water leak that caused an 

excessive utility bill for water consumption.

73. On or about August 30, 2022, Plaintiff told ANGELICA OSORIO that she should not have to 

pay for the business utility bill. Plaintiff alleged that it was impossible for her to pay such an 

amount. Plaintiff complained that she was not receiving overtime payment for off-the-clock 

hours and that she did not have enough money. In the alternative, Plaintiff requested 

ANGELICA OSORIO to allow her to pay the bill in installments. ANGELICA OSORIO 

refused Plaintiff's requests. 

74. On or about August 30, 2022, Plaintiff complained about unpaid overtime hours and opposed 

an illegal wage deduction.

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

76. However, on or about September 04, 2022, when Plaintiff went to pick up her check, supervisor 

Frank Rodriguez fired Plaintiff, alleging that he just followed instructions from Defendants 

OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO.

77. The supervisor handed Plaintiff a check for $138.22 and a note for a deduction of $550.00. 

Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's wages $550.00 to cover utility expenses of the business. 

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17

78. This illegal deduction reduced Plaintiff's wages below the required minimum wage.

79. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of Section 

206 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC 206(a)(1).

80. On or about September 04, 2022, Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA was fired in retaliation to his 

complaints about unpaid overtime hours and her opposition to illegal deductions. Both 

employment practices violated the FLSA.

81. At all times during her employment, Plaintiff performed her work satisfactorily. There was no 

reason other than a retaliatory action to terminate Plaintiff's employment with Defendants.

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

participated in protected activity. 

83. Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and ANGELICA OSORIO 

willfully and maliciously retaliated against Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA by engaging in a 

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

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

84. Defendants' adverse actions against Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA were in direct violation of 

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

85. Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to 

represent her in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Enter judgment declaring that the firing of Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA by Defendants

OSVALDO NAVARRO and ANGELICA OSORIO was an unlawful act of retaliation in 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17

B. Enter judgment against Defendants EL TAQUITO CORP, OSVALDO NAVARRO, and 

ANGELICA OSORIO, awarding Plaintiff JOSETTE ZAMORA 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 JOSETTE ZAMORA demands a trial by a jury of all issues triable right by a jury.

Dated: November 14, 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-23735-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 17 of 17