Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

Vrany Jesus,

and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 

CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC,

Umana Construction LLC, and

Ervin Umana, individually,

Defendants,

______________________________/ 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 USC § 216(b))

Comes now the Plaintiff Vrany Jesus and other similarly situated individuals, by and 

through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sue Defendants CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC, 

Umana Construction LLC, and Ervin Umana, individually, and alleges:

Jurisdiction Venues and Parties

1. This is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and 

retaliation under United States laws. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 USC § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) ("the Act"). 

2. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, within this Honorable 

Court jurisdiction and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes 

of the Act.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 1 of 20
Page 2 of 20

3. Defendant CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC (from now on CMR Construction, or 

Defendant) is a Foreign Corporation authorized to perform business in Florida. Defendant 

has a place of business in Palm Beach County within this Honorable Court Jurisdiction. 

Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce. 

4. Defendant Umana Construction LLC (from now on Umana Construction, or Defendant) is 

a Florida Corporation doing business in Palm Beach County within this Honorable Court 

Jurisdiction. Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce. 

5. The individual Defendant Ervin Umana was and is now the owner/partner/officer and 

manager of Defendant corporation Umana Construction. This individual Defendant was 

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

of the "Fair Labor Standards Act" [29 USC § 203(d)].

6. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r)(1) and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §791.2., Corporate Defendants 

CMR Construction and Umana Construction are a joint enterprise and joint employers of 

Plaintiff. 

7. All the actions raised in this Complaint took place in Palm Beach County, Florida, within 

this Court's jurisdiction. 

General Allegations

8. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff Vrany Jesus as a collective action to recover 

from Defendants regular and overtime compensation, retaliatory and liquidated damages, 

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

as amended, 29 USC § 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") and 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 2 of 20
Page 3 of 20

who worked more than forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2022, 

(the "material time") without being adequately compensated. 

9. Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction are construction and roofing 

contractors specializing in commercial and residential roof installations, maintenance, and 

repairs.

10. Corporate Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction worked on different 

projects in Palm Beach County, where Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals 

worked.

11. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r)(1), Defendants C CMR Construction and Umana 

Construction are a joint enterprise because: 1) both companies have the same business 

activities; 2) both companies shared centralized management, equipment, and supplies; 3) 

Defendants operated as a single unit for a common business purpose; 4) between

Defendants existed unified operation and common control, and they operated as a single 

unit; 5) Defendants shared a common business purpose, the profitable operation of the

businesses; 6) Defendants had an interdependent financial interest; 7) and existed common 

ownership and management.

12. Pursuant 29 C.F.R. §791.2. Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction were 

joint employers because: 1) Corporate Defendants were equally responsible for the work 

done at the project, where Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees worked; 2)

Defendants, through their supervisors and owner/manager Ervin Umana had equal and 

absolute control over the Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated; 3) Defendants 

through their management jointly and equally determined terms and employment 

conditions of Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated; 4) the work performed by 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 3 of 20
Page 4 of 20

Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals was an integral part of the business 

operation of Corporate Defendants; 5) Corporate Defendants had equal power to hire and 

to fire employees; 6) supervisor Damian LNU from CMR Construction and Individual 

Defendant Ervin Umana from Umana Construction, personally supervised schedules, and 

times records of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

13. Therefore, because the work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals 

simultaneously benefited all Defendants and directly or indirectly furthered their joint 

interest, Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction are a joint enterprise as 

defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r)(1). 

14. Because Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction equally hired and fired 

employees, supervised and controlled Plaintiff's work schedules, and maintained 

employment records of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, they are also joint 

employers as defined in 29 C.F.R. §791.2. 

15. Defendants CMR Construction and Umana are also the joint employers of Plaintiff and 

other similarly situated employees under the FLSA's broad definition of "employer" (29 

U.S.C. §203 (d)), and they are jointly liable for Plaintiff's damages. 

16. Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction, hereinafter, will be called CMR 

Construction collectively.

17. Defendant CMR Construction 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 is a construction 

and roofing company that provides services to commercial and residential clients. 

Defendant had more than two employees recurrently engaged in commerce or the 

production of goods for commerce by regularly and recurrently using the instrumentalities 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20

of interstate 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 belief, the combined annual gross revenue 

of the Employer/Defendant was at all times in excess of $500,000 per annum. Therefore,

there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

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

commerce. Plaintiff and those similarly-situated through their daily activities, participated 

in interstate commerce by providing services to clients engaged in interstate commerce. In 

addition, Plaintiff regularly handled and worked on goods and materials produced for 

commerce and moved across State lines at any time during the business. Therefore, there 

is FLSA individual coverage.

19. Defendant CMR Construction and Ervin Umana employed Plaintiff Vrany Jesus as a nonexempted, full-time roof installer from approximately July 25, 2022, to October 05, 2022, 

or 10 weeks.

20. Plaintiff worked under the supervision of manager Ervin Umana from Umana 

Construction and supervisor Damian LNU (from CMR Construction).

21. During the relevant period, Plaintiff performed as a roofer, and he was paid a daily rate of 

$180.00.

22. While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, he worked five weeks of 5 days of work and 

five weeks of 7 working days. 

23. Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and in weeks of five days, he worked from Monday to 

Friday from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM (13 hours daily). Plaintiff worked 65 hours weekly.

Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 5 of 20
Page 6 of 20

24. Twice per month Plaintiff worked seven days per week, the same schedule from 6:00 AM 

to 7:00 PM (13 hours daily) or a total of 91 hours weekly.

25. Thus, during his employment with Defendants Plaintiff worked a total of five weeks with 

65 working hours and five weeks with 91 working hours.

26. Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate, regardless of the number of hours worked every 

week, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

27. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants were in absolute control of his schedule 

and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals were working.

28. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time 

and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he 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).

29. Plaintiff was paid in cash, without paystubs providing accurate information such as the 

number of days and hours worked and wage rate. 

30. Plaintiff was not in agreement with his extended working hours and the lack of payment 

for overtime hours.

31. Plaintiff complained several times to his manager Ervin Umana about unpaid wages and 

overtime.

32. On or about October 05, 2022, Plaintiff complained about the lack of payment for regular 

hours and overtime hours. Plaintiff mentioned his legal rights regarding his wages. Ervin 

Umana got very upset, and he fired Plaintiff immediately. 

33. At the time of his termination, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff three weeks of work of 

91 working hours each or the value of $3,780.00

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20

34. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206, et seq.

35. At times mentioned, individual Defendant Ervin Umana was, and is now, the 

owner/partner/manager of Umana Construction. Defendant Ervin Umana wasthe employer 

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

Labor Standards Act" [29 USC § 203(d)]. This individual Defendant acted directly in CMR 

Construction and Umana Construction's interests concerning its employees, including 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant Ervin Umana had financial and 

operational control of the business determining Plaintiff's terms and conditions of 

employment. Accordingly, he is jointly and severally liable for Plaintiff's damages. 

36. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages for every hour 

worked over 40 during his entire employment, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, 

and any other relief as allowable by law.

Collective Action Allegations

37. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §§201, et seq.

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

38. Plaintiff contends that Defendants, in this case, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by 

failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for 

every regular and overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate.

39. This action is intended to include every construction employee and any similarly situated 

individuals who worked for Defendants at any time during the past three (3) years. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20

40. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus re-adopts every factual allegation stated in paragraphs 1-39 above as 

if set out in full herein. 

41. Defendant CMR Construction and Ervin Umana employed Plaintiff Vrany Jesus as a nonexempted, full-time roof installer from approximately July 25, 2022, to October 05, 2022, 

or 10 weeks.

42. Plaintiff worked under the supervision of manager Ervin Umana from Umana 

Construction and supervisor Damian LNU (from CMR Construction).

43. During the relevant period, Plaintiff performed as a roofer, and he was paid a daily rate of 

$180.00.

44. While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, he worked five weeks of 5 days of work and 

five weeks of 7 working days. 

45. Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and in weeks of five days, he worked a total of 65 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods.

46. Twice per month, Plaintiff worked seven days per week, the same schedule from 6:00 AM 

to 7:00 PM (13 hours daily) or a total of 91 hours weekly.

47. Thus, during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked a total of five weeks with 

65 working hours and five weeks with 91 working hours.

48. Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate, regardless of the number of hours worked every 

week, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

49. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants were in absolute control of his schedule 

and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals were working. 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20

50. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time 

and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he 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).

51. Plaintiff was paid in cash, without paystubs providing accurate information such as the 

number of days and hours worked and wage rate. 

52. Plaintiff was fired on or about October 05, 2022, after he complained about unpaid wages.

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

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

custody of Defendants. However, Defendants did not maintain accurate time records of 

hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees upon information and belief. 

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

55. Upon information and belief, 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, Defendants violated the Posting 

requirements of 29 USC § 516.4.

56. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will provide a reasonable

good-faith estimate based on his recollections and his knowledge. After discovery, Plaintiff 

will amend his statement of claim.

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

Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and 40/100 ($2,633.40)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Total period of employment: 10 week

Relevant weeks of employment: 10 weeks

Daily rate: $180.00 per day.

 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 9 of 20
Page 10 of 20

 1.- Overtime for 5 weeks with 65 working hours weekly

 Relevant weeks: 5 weeks

 Total hours worked: 65 hours weekly

 O/T unpaid hours: 25 O/T hours

 Daily rate: $180.00 x 5 days = $900.00

 Paid: $900.00: 65 hours=$13.85 an hour x 1.5=$20.78

 O/T rate: $20.78- $13.85 O/T rate paid=$6.93 half-time difference

 Half-time: $6.93

$6.93 x 25 O/T hours=$173.25 weekly x 5 weeks=$866.25

 2.- Overtime for 5 weeks with 91 working hours weekly

 Relevant weeks: 5 weeks

 Total hours worked: 91 hours weekly

 O/T unpaid hours: 51 O/T hours

 Daily rate: $180.00 x 7 days = $1.260.00

 Paid: $1,260.00: 91 hours=$13.85 an hour x 1.5=$20.78

 O/T rate: $20.78- $13.85 O/T rate paid=$6.93 half-time difference

 Half-time: $6.93

$6.93 x 51 O/T hours=$353.43 weekly x 5 weeks=$1,767.15

 Total #1 and #2: $2,633.40

 

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

 This amount represents unpaid half-time overtime wages.1

57. At all times, material hereto, the Employers/Defendantsfailed to comply with Title 29 USC

§207 (a) (1). In that, Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed services and worked 

more than the maximum hours provided by the Act. Still, the Defendants made no 

provision to properly pay them at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked over

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

58. Defendants knew and 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 

1 At this time, Plaintiff has limited time and payment records. Accordingly, Plaintiff estimates 

her damages and reserves the right to amend the calculations.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 10 of 20
Page 11 of 20

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. 

59. Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin Umana 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. 

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

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

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff Vrany Jesus and those similarly situated respectfully request that this 

Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff Vrany Jesus and other similarly situated individuals and 

against the Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin Umana based on Defendants' 

willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff Vrany Jesus 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. 

Demand for a Jury Trial

Plaintiff Vrany Jesus demands a trial by a jury of all issues triable as of right by a jury.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20

COUNT II:

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

PAY MINIMUM WAGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

61. Plaintiff re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-39 of this Complaint 

as if set out in full herein.

62. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from the Employers 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. 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: 

(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.

63. Defendant CMR Construction and Ervin Umana employed Plaintiff Vrany Jesus as a nonexempted, full-time roof installer from approximately July 25, 2022, to October 05, 2022, 

or 10 weeks.

64. During the relevant period, Plaintiff performed as a roofer, and he was paid a daily rate of 

$180.00.

65. While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, he worked five weeks of 5 days of work and 

five weeks of 7 working days. 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20

66. Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and in weeks of five days, he worked a total of 65 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods.

67. Twice per month, Plaintiff worked seven days per week, the same schedule from 6:00 AM 

to 7:00 PM (13 hours daily) or a total of 91 hours weekly.

68. Thus, during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked a total of five weeks with 

65 working hours and five weeks with 91 working hours.

69. Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate, regardless of the number of hours worked every 

week, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

70. Plaintiff was paid in cash, without paystubs providing accurate information such as the 

number of days and hours worked and wage rate. 

71. Plaintiff was not in agreement with his extended working hours and the lack of payment 

for overtime hours.

72. Plaintiff complained several times to his manager Ervin Umana about unpaid wages and 

overtime.

73. On or about October 05, 2022, Plaintiff complained about the lack of payment for regular 

hours and overtime hours. Plaintiff mentioned his legal rights regarding wages. Ervin 

Umana got very upset, and he fired Plaintiff immediately. 

74. At the time of his termination, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff three weeks of work of 

91 working hours each or the value of $3,780.00.

75. There is a substantial number of hours that were not compensated at any rate, not even the 

minimum wage rate established by the FLSA. 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 13 of 20
Page 14 of 20

76. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants were in absolute control of his schedule 

and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals were working. 

77. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206, et seq.

78. Plaintiff was paid in cash, without paystubs providing accurate information such as the 

number of days and hours worked and wage rate. 

79. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours actually 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. 

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

81. Upon information and belief, 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.

82. 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: 

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

could be subject to modification as discovery could dictate. 

Florida's 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:

Two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Dollars and 00/100 ($2,730.00)

b. Calculation of such wages: 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 14 of 20
Page 15 of 20

Total period of employment: 10 weeks

Total number of unpaid weeks: 3 weeks 

Total number of unpaid hours: 91 hours weekly

Fl Minimum wage 2022: $10.00 

$10.00 x 91 hours=$910.00 weekly x 3 weeks= $2,730.00

 

c. Nature of wages:

This amount represents regular unpaid wages at the Florida minimum wage rate.2

83. Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin Umana unlawfully failed to pay minimum wages 

to Plaintiff. 

84. Defendants knew and showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the Act concerning 

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

owing Plaintiff these minimum wages.

85. Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin Umana willfully and intentionally refused to pay 

Plaintiff minimum wages as required by the law of the United States and remain owing 

Plaintiff these minimum wages as set forth above. 

86. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent him 

individually and on behalf of the asserted class and incurred attorney's fees and costs in 

bringing this action. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216 (b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff Vrany Jesus respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin 

2 At this time, Plaintiff has limited time and payment records. Accordingly, Plaintiff estimates 

her damages and reserves the right to amend the calculations.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20

Umana 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. 

Demand for a Jury Trial

Plaintiff Vrany Jesus and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all issues triable as a 

right by a jury.

COUNT III:

FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION: RETALIATORY DISCHARGE;

PURSUANT TO 29 USC 215(a)(3); AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

87. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus re-adopts every factual allegation stated in paragraphs 1-39 of this 

Complaint as if set out in full herein.

88. Defendant CMR Construction was and is engaged in interstate commerce as defined in §§ 

3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 USC § 203(r) and 203(s)(1)(A

89. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant's business activities involve those to which the Fair 

Labor Standards Act applies. 

90. 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)].

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20

91. 29 USC § 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 in excess 

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

92. Likewise, 29 USC 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,......"

93. Defendant CMR Construction and Ervin Umana employed Plaintiff Vrany Jesus as a nonexempted, full-time roof installer from approximately July 25, 2022, to October 05, 2022, 

or 10 weeks.

94. During the relevant period, Plaintiff performed as a roofer, and he was paid a daily rate of 

$180.00.

95. While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, he worked five weeks of 5 days of work and 

five weeks of 7 working days. 

96. Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and in weeks of five days, he worked a total of 65 hours 

weekly. Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods.

97. Twice per month, Plaintiff worked seven days per week, the same schedule from 6:00 AM 

to 7:00 PM (13 hours daily) or a total of 91 hours weekly.

98. Thus, during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked a total of five weeks with 

65 working hours and five weeks with 91 working hours.

99. Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate, regardless of the number of hours worked every 

week, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20

100. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants were in absolute control of his 

schedule and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated individuals were working. 

101. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of 

time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he 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).

102. Plaintiff was paid in cash, without paystubs providing accurate information such as 

the number of days and hours worked and wage rate. 

103. Plaintiff was not in agreement with his extended working hours and the lack of 

payment for overtime hours.

104. Plaintiff complained several times to his manager Ervin Umana about unpaid wages 

and overtime.

105. On or about October 05, 2022, Plaintiff complained about the lack of payment for 

regular hours and overtime hours.

106. This complaint constituted protected activity under the FLSA.

107. However, after Plaintiff mentioned his legal rights regarding wages, Ervin Umana 

got very upset and fired Plaintiff immediately. 

108. At the time of his termination, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff three weeks of 

work of 91 working hours each or the value of $3,780.00

109. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206, et seq.

110. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was performing the essential functions of 

his position satisfactorily. There was no other reason than retaliation to fire him. 

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20

111. There is close proximity between Plaintiff's protected activity and his termination.

112. The motivating factor which caused Plaintiff's discharge, as described above, was 

his complaint seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages from Defendants. In other words, 

Plaintiff would not have been fired but for his complaints about unpaid regular and 

overtime wages.

113. The Defendants' termination of Plaintiff was in direct violation of 29 USC 215 

(a)(3), and, as a direct result, Plaintiff has been damaged.

114. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus 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 Vrany Jesus respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants' acts, policies, practices, and procedures 

complained of herein violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 

B. Enter judgment against Defendants CMR Construction and Ervin Umana that Plaintiff

Vrany Jesus recovers compensatory damages and an equal amount of liquidated damages 

as provided under the law and in 29 USC § 216(b); 

C. That Plaintiff recovers an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses. 

D. Order the Defendants CMR Construction and Umana Construction to make whole the 

Plaintiff by providing appropriate back pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an 

amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

E. Plaintiff Vrany Jesus further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice 

may require.

Case 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20

Demand for a Jury Trial

Plaintiff Vrany Jesus demands a trial by a jury of all issues triable as a right by a jury.

Date: November 29, 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 9:22-cv-81856-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 20 of 20