UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO: 

JOSHUA WINDHEIM, individually, 

and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC

d/b/a BIG LOUIE’S PIZZERIA, a Florida

limited liability company,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly 

situated, files this Class/Collective Action Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial 

against Defendant, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC d/b/a BIG LOUIE’S PIZZERIA 

(referred to hereinafter as “Defendant” or “Big Louie’s”) for failure to pay federal minimum 

wages, Florida minimum wages, and federal overtime wages for certain hours worked to himself

and all Restaurant Servers (hereinafter “Servers”) who worked for Defendant in Hollywood,

Florida, , and for FLSA retaliation, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), F.S. § 448.110, and Fla. Const. 

Art. X, §24, and in support states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Wage theft in the United States continues to ravage the country’s workforce. 

Workers across the State of Florida are entitled to a minimum wage that provides a fulfilling life, 

protects employees from unfair wage competition, and does not force them to rely upon 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 1 of 25
2

taxpayer-funded public services to avoid economic hardship. See Fla. Const. Art X §24(a). Since 

2004, the Florida legislature has mandated that all employers shall pay employees wages no less 

than the minimum wage for all hours worked throughout the State of Florida. See Fla. Const. 

Art. X §24(c). These requirements extend to the restaurant industry and while Florida law allows 

employers operating in the restaurant industry to take a tip credit toward the applicable Florida 

minimum wage for customarily tipped employees the employer is nevertheless required to 

comply with strict requirements concerning the payment of a reduced wage. This class action 

lawsuit seeks to cure Defendant’s blatant and egregious minimum wage violations on behalf of 

all Servers who worked for Defendant at Big Louie’s within the past five (5) years in Hollywood, 

Florida. Defendant has failed to appropriately compensate Servers in accordance with the federal 

overtime laws, and federal and Florida minimum wage laws. In short, Defendant has taken 

advantage of its hard-working employees. When Plaintiff voiced his objection to these unlawful 

practices and complained to Defendant about these unlawful pay practices Plaintiff’s 

employment was terminated. Plaintiff now seeks to stop Defendant from engaging in this 

unlawful conduct and to vindicate his rights along with the rights of all similarly situated Servers

who were employed by Defendant within the past 5 years. 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff and the Class Members are/were Servers who worked for Defendant within 

the last five (5) years at Big Louie’s located in Hollywood within Broward County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid less than the applicable Florida 

minimum wage by Defendant for certain hours worked in one or more workweeks.

4. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server from on or about March 2022, through 

on or about April 19, 2022. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 2 of 25
3

5. The proposed Class Members worked for Defendant as Servers in the same or 

identical capacity as Plaintiff within the past 5 years.

6. Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members were subjected to similar violations of 

the Florida Constitution and F.S. § 448.110. Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23 of the following class for failure to pay Florida’s mandated minimum wages pursuant to 

the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and Fla. Const. Art. X Section 24:

Tip Notice Class: All Servers who worked for Defendant at 

Big Louie’s Pizzeria in Hollywood, Florida 

during the five (5) years preceding this

lawsuit, who were not provided the 

appropriate tip notice pursuant to Fla. 

Const. Art. X 24(c) and/or F.S. § 448.110. 

7. The precise size and identity of the class should be ascertainable from the business 

records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of Defendant; however, Plaintiff 

estimates that the total number of class members for each proposed class exceeds 40 Servers.

8. Defendant, Big Louie’s principal address is 380 North Park Road, Hollywood, 

Florida 33021, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

9. This action is brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and the FMWA

to recover damages from Defendant and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The relief sought 

under Florida law in this action is intended to include each and every Server who worked for

Defendant at any time within the past five (5) years at Big Louie’s in Hollywood, Florida.

10. This Honorable Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 3 of 25
4

11. All acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim took place within Broward 

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

12. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over this Class Action Complaint, as 

Defendant’s principal address is in Broward County, Florida, where the subject restaurant 

operates.

FLSA COVERAGE

13. Defendant, Big Louie’s, is an enterprise covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), Florida Constitution, and F.S. § 448.110, by virtue of the fact that it is an enterprise 

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. Defendant, Big Louie’s, had at 

least two employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or 

employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in 

or produced for commerce by any person. 

14. Defendant, Big Louie’s employees handled goods such as napkins, silverware, 

appliances, liquor, beer, food items, credit cards, debit cards, restaurant equipment, pens, chairs, 

tomato sauce, cheese, olives, pepperoni, tables, vacuum cleaners, steaks, seafood, napkins, 

silverware, televisions, remote controls, chicken, menus, and other materials that had previously 

travelled through commerce. 

15. At all material times (during the last five years), Defendant, Big Louie’s, had an 

annual gross revenue in excess of $500,000.00 in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and is expected 

to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in 2022. 

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16. Defendant is in the business of providing food and drink to the general public at its 

pizzeria located in Hollywood, Florida.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 4 of 25
5

17. Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Class Members as “Servers” at Big Louie’s

within the past five (5) years.

18. Plaintiff and Class Members were non-exempt employees of Defendant. 

19. Plaintiff and Class Members’ job duties consisted of serving patrons and customers

in designated areas which required little to no special or advanced skill. 

20. The work performed by Plaintiff and Class Members was an integral part of the 

business for Defendant. 

21. Defendant controlled and/or remained responsible for the work of Plaintiff and the 

Class Members, and otherwise met the factors of the “economic realities test,” for the Parties to 

fall within the definition of employer and employee under federal and Florida law.

22. Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and the Class Members. 

23. Defendant enforced the uniform requirements at the subject restaurant and require 

Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase and wear certain clothing and uniforms. 

24. Defendant controlled Plaintiff and Class Members’ work schedules. 

25. Defendant scheduled Plaintiff and other Class Members to certain shifts.

26. Defendant required Plaintiff and other Class Members to work a certain number of 

days during the week. 

27. Defendant required Plaintiff and other Class Members to work on specific days of 

the week.

28. Defendant provided training, if needed, that taught the Servers what they needed to 

know in order to work at the restaurant. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 5 of 25
6

29. Defendant determined the rate and the method of payment of all Servers including 

Plaintiff. 

30. Defendant established and enforced the tip pool policies in the restaurant. 

31. Defendant required Plaintiff and all other Servers to contribute certain percentages 

of the tips they received to a tip pool each shift.

32. Plaintiff and Class Members worked without being paid the full federal or Florida 

minimum wage for certain hours worked. 

33. Defendant failed to keep accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and Class 

Members to designate how much members of the putative class earned in tips each shift. 

34. During the relevant time period Plaintiff and Class Members worked as Servers the 

Defendants attempted to take a tip credit toward the requisite federal and Florida Minimum 

Wages.

35. Plaintiff and putative Class Members are entitled to receive the full Florida

minimum wage for hours spent each shift performing work because they did not receive the 

required tip notice under Florida and/or federal law.

36. As a result of these widespread violations, Plaintiff and putative Class Members 

did not receive the applicable state minimum wage in one or more workweeks within the past 

five (5) years. 

37. As a result of these widespread violations, Plaintiff and members of the putative 

class regularly worked hours for which they did not receive the applicable Florida minimum 

wage in one or more workweeks within the past five (5) years.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 6 of 25
7

38. Defendant maintained some records regarding the time Plaintiff and Class Members 

worked but failed to adequately maintain a full and complete account of all hours worked by the 

Servers. 

39. Defendant violated the terms of the FLSA by not paying Plaintiff at least federal 

minimum wages for all hours worked. 

40. Defendants violated the terms of the Florida Constitution’s provision on minimum 

wages by not paying Plaintiff and putative class members, at least Florida’s applicable minimum 

wage for all hours worked.

41. Plaintiff is entitled to receive at least federal minimum wages for each hour worked. 

42. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to receive at least Florida’s minimum wage 

for each hour worked. 

43. The State of Florida allows employers to take a $3.02 tip credit toward the 

applicable Florida minimum wage for customarily tipped employees.

44. Defendant failed to notify Plaintiff and putative Class Members that it would be 

taking a tip credit in the amount of $3.02 per hour based on the tips received by Plaintiff and 

putative Class Members during their employment.

45. In 2017, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.10 per hour. 

46. In 2017, the applicable reduced wage for tipped employees in Florida was $5.08 

per hour.

47. In 2018, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.25 per hour.

48. In 2018, the applicable reduced wage for tipped employees in Florida was $5.23 

per hour. 

49. In 2019, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.46 per hour. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 7 of 25
8

50. In 2019, the applicable reduced wage for tipped employees in Florida was $5.44 

per hour.

51. In 2020, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.56 per hour.

52. In 2020, the applicable reduced wage for tipped employees in Florida was $5.54 

per hour.

53. From January 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021, the Florida Minimum Wage 

was $8.65 per hour.

54. From January 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021, the reduced wage for tipped 

employees in Florida was $5.63 per hour.

55. From October 1, 2021, through the present the Florida Minimum Wage is $10.00 

per hour.

56. From October 1, 2021, through the present, the reduced wage for tipped employees 

in Florida is $6.98 per hour.

57. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees 

with positions similarly situated to Plaintiff and who suffered from the same pay practices of not 

being properly paid at least Florida’s minimum wage for hours worked in each of the preceding 

five (5) years. 

58. The records, to the extent that any exist, concerning the number of hours worked 

and amounts paid to Plaintiff and Class Members are in the possession, custody, and control of

Defendant. 

59. Defendant violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiff and the putative class 

members, at least federal minimum wage for certain hours worked.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 8 of 25
9

60. Defendant violated the FMWA by not paying Plaintiff and the putative class 

members, at least Florida minimum wage for certain hours worked.

61. Plaintiff has complied with pre-suit notice, and all other conditions precedent to 

this action have been performed or waived, by sending Defendant a pre-suit minimum wage 

demand letter required by Florida law.

62. More than fifteen (15) days have passed since Defendant received such written presuit notice alleged above, and Defendants have failed to tender full payment to compensate 

Plaintiff and Class Members for the minimum wages owed.

63. Defendant was aware of the requirements of the FLSA and the FMWA, and the 

pertinent regulations thereto, yet acted willfully and/or intentionally in failing to pay Plaintiff and 

the class members in accordance with the law.

64. The applicable statute of limitations under the Florida Constitution and FMWA is 

therefore 5 years as opposed to 4 years. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

65. Class members are treated equally and similarly by Defendant, in that they were 

commonly mistreated by Defendant as they were not paid full and proper Florida minimum 

wages for all hours worked.

66. On information and belief, Defendant employed in excess of 40 class members who 

were not paid Florida’s minimum wage for certain hours worked within the past five (5) years.

67. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and class members adequate and sufficient 

notice that they would be relying upon a tip credit to off-set its wage obligations in relation to 

the Florida minimum wage.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 9 of 25
10

68. Plaintiff and class members worked at the same restaurant location in Hollywood, 

Florida.

69. Plaintiff and class members performed the same job duties as Servers and were paid 

in an identical manner by Defendant based on Defendant treating the Servers as tipped 

employees but not compensating them in accordance with Florida law.

70. Plaintiff and class members were not paid proper Florida minimum wages for all 

hours worked.

71. Defendant failed to keep accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and all class 

members.

72. Defendant was aware of the requirements of Fla. Const. Art. X, §24 yet acted 

willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the class members in accordance with the law. 

73. Plaintiff has hired the undersigned law firm to represent him in this matter and is 

obligated to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if he prevails.

74. The claims alleged under the Florida Constitution may be pursued by all similarly 

situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

75. The number of individuals in the class is so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable. The exact number of members of each class can be determined by reviewing 

Defendant’s records. Plaintiff, on information and belief, is aware that there are numerous 

eligible individuals in the defined class and estimates the class size to be in excess of 40 Servers.

76. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and has retained 

counsel which is experienced and competent in class action employment litigation.

77. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with the members of the 

class.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 10 of 25
11

78. A class action lawsuit, such as this one, is superior to other available means for fair 

and efficient adjudication of the issues alleged herein. The damages suffered by individual 

members of the class may be relatively small when compared to the expense and burden of 

litigation, making it virtually impossible for members of the class to individually seek redress 

for the wrongs done to them.

79. A class action is, therefore, superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. Absent these actions, many members of the class likely 

will not obtain redress of their damages and Defendant will retain the proceeds of their violations 

of the Florida Constitution. 

80. Even if every member of the class could afford individual litigation against 

Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system. Concentrating the litigation 

in one forum will promote judicial economy, efficiency, and parity among the claims of 

individual members of the class and provide for judicial consistency.

81. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact 

affecting the class as a whole. The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate 

over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions of 

law and fact are: 

a) Whether Defendant employed Servers within meaning of the law;

b) Whether Defendant uniformly, willfully, and wrongfully failed to pay Servers the

Florida minimum wage for all hours worked;

c) What remedies are appropriate compensation for the damages caused to Plaintiff 

and each member of the class; and

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 11 of 25
12

d) Whether Defendant’s failure to compensate Plaintiff and the class members at the 

applicable Florida minimum wage was willful, intentional, or done with reckless disregard. 

82. The relief sought is common to the entire class including:

a) Payment by Defendant of actual damages caused by their failure to pay minimum 

wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution;

b) Payment by Defendant of liquidated damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution;

c) Payment by Defendant for damages related to unjust enrichment; and

d) Payment by Defendant of the costs and expenses of this action, including attorney’s 

fees to Plaintiff’s counsel.

83. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the class.

84. Plaintiff and the class members have sustained damages arising out of the same 

wrongful and uniform employment policies of Defendant in violation of the Florida Constitution. 

85. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this 

litigation that would preclude its continued maintenance as a class action.

DEFEENDANT REQUIRES PLAINTIFF AND ALL OTHER SERVERS TO SPEND 30 OR 

MORE CONTINUOUS MINUTES ON NON-TIPPED DUTIES AND SIDE WORK DURING 

EACH SHIFT 

86. Side work and non-tipped work which take 30 or more continuous minutes is not 

considered “part of the tipped occupation.” See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(f)(4)(ii).

87. Accordingly, employers are forbidden from taking a tip credit when they compel 

tipped employees to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

88. During all times material hereto, Defendant required all servers including Plaintiff 

to arrive at opening shifts at least 30 minutes before the restaurant was open to the public. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 12 of 25
13

89. Moreover, during all times material hereto, Defendant required servers to perform 

side work and non-tipped duties for 30 or more continuous minutes at the end of closing shifts, 

often when servers did not have any customers and the restaurant was closed to the public. 

90. Plaintiff is entitled to recover at least federal minimum wage for time spent 

performing “non-tipped” duties and side work which equals or exceeds 30 continuous minutes per 

shift. 

91. As a result of Defendant’s intentional and willful failure to comply with the FLSA 

and the FMWA, Plaintiff was required to retain the undersigned counsel and is therefore entitled 

to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of these claims.

COUNT I – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS 

(TIP NOTICE COLLECTIVE)

92. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 91 as though set forth 

fully herein.

93. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid full federal minimum wage in one or more 

workweeks for certain hours worked during his employment with Defendant.

94. Defendant attempted to rely on the FLSA’s tip credit but failed to provide Plaintiff 

with the requisite notice of the tip credit required under federal law.

95. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to receive full federal minimum wage at the rate of 

$7.25 per hour for every hour he worked.

96. Defendant knew Plaintiff performed work but willfully failed to pay Plaintiff full 

federal minimum wage contrary to the FLSA. 

97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff has been damaged in the loss of federal minimum wages for one or more weeks of work 

during his employment with Defendant. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 13 of 25
14

98. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of law entitle Plaintiff to an 

additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

99. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the 

undersigned counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC, 

and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wages to be paid by the Defendant; (b) an 

equal amount of liquidated damages to be paid by the Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees 

and litigation costs as permitted under the FLSA; and any and all such further relief as this Court 

may deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT II – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(TIP NOTICE CLASS)

100. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 91 as though set forth 

fully herein.

101. Defendant violated the terms of F.S. § 448.110 and the Florida Constitution’s 

provision on minimum wages by attempting to take a tip credit toward the applicable Florida 

minimum wage but failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class members the appropriate tip 

notice within the past 5 years as required under Florida law.

102. Defendant therefore forfeits any tip credit under Florida law and owes each Server 

at least $3.02 for each hour of work they performed within the past 5 years in time periods in 

which Defendant failed to comply with the reduced wage requirements.

103. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Notice pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 

448.110, on behalf of himself, and a class of all those similarly situated to Plaintiff.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 14 of 25
15

104. More than 15 days have elapsed since Plaintiff’s service of his Notice on 

Defendant, and Defendant has failed to tender full payment to Plaintiff.

105. Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to receive at least Florida’s minimum 

wage for certain hours worked. 

106. In 2017, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.10 per hour. 

107. In 2018, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.25 per hour.

108. In 2019, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.46 per hour. 

109. In 2020, the Florida Minimum Wage was $8.56 per hour.

110. From January 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021, the Florida Minimum Wage 

was $8.65 per hour.

111. From October 1, 2021, through the present the Florida Minimum Wage is $10.00 

per hour.

112. Plaintiff and the proposed Tip Notice Class members were subjected to similar 

violations of the FMWA and Florida Constitution. Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23 of the following class for Defendant’s failure to pay Florida’s mandated minimum 

wages:

All Servers who worked for Defendant at Big Louie’s Pizzeria 

in Hollywood, Florida during the five (5) years preceding this 

lawsuit, who were not provided the appropriate tip credit notice

pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X 24(c) and/or F.S. § 448.110. 

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

113. Plaintiff brings this FMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the above class (the “Tip Notice Class”). 

114. The putative Tip Notice Class members are treated equally and similarly by 

Defendant, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wage based upon the 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 15 of 25
16

Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated Servers the notice of Defendant’s 

intent to rely upon a tip credit under Florida law. 

115. Numerosity: Defendant employed in excess of 40 Servers in the class during the 

past five (5) years who were not provided the required tip notice when Defendant attempted to 

take a tip credit under Florida law. Given Defendant’s considerable size and the systematic nature 

of its failure to comply with Florida law, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impractical. 

116. Plaintiff and the class members were subject to the same policies. 

117. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member of the Class, 

including Plaintiff. Such questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to the 

following:

(a) Whether Plaintiff and the Tip Credit Class were “employees” of Defendant;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the Tip Credit Class’s hours were properly recorded;

(c) Whether Defendant violated the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and the 

Tip Notice Class under the FMWA by failing to provide sufficient notice of the tip credit to these 

employees;

(d) Whether Defendant willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the Tip 

Notice Class the Florida minimum wages as required under Florida law;

(e) Whether Defendant knew or should have known of the Florida minimum wage 

requirements and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate proper payroll 

practices; and

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 16 of 25
17

(f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the Tip 

Notice Class based upon Defendant’s conduct.

118. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Tip 

Notice Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Defendant’s company-wide policy of paying all 

Servers a reduced wage without providing the proper tip credit notice which resulted in them not 

receiving the applicable Florida minimum wage. 

119. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Tip Notice 

Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the Tip Notice Class. 

Plaintiff is interested in pursuing his claims against Defendant vigorously and has retained counsel 

competent and experienced in class and complex litigation.

120. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action 

that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

121. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Tip Notice Class, 

thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the Tip Notice Class as a whole. Prosecution of 

separate actions by individual members of the Tip Notice Class would create the risk of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Tip Notice 

Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 17 of 25
18

122. Without a class action, Defendant will likely continue to retain the benefit of their 

wrongdoing and will continue a course of conduct that will result in further damages to Plaintiff 

and the Tip Notice Class. 

123. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members performed the same job duties, as 

Servers, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendant based on Defendant’s failure to 

provide Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members the appropriate tip credit notice when they 

took a tip credit.

124. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members were not paid proper Florida minimum 

wage for the hours worked.

125. Defendant was aware of the requirements of the FMWA, and the pertinent 

regulations thereto, yet acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members 

in accordance with the law.

126. The precise size and identity of the class should be ascertainable from the business 

records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of Defendant; however, Plaintiff

estimates that the total number of putative Tip Notice Class members exceeds 40 Servers. 

127. This action is intended to include each and every Server who worked at Defendant’s 

restaurant in Hollywood, Florida, during the past five (5) years and was not provided the requisite 

tip credit notice when Defendant attempted to take a tip credit. 

128. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all Tip Notice Class members were 

non-exempt employees of Defendant. 

129. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members performed work as servers which was 

an integral part of the business for Defendant. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 18 of 25
19

130. Defendant violated the terms of the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision 

on minimum wages by not providing Plaintiff and the putative Tip Notice Class members the 

requisite notice of the tip credit, and then failing to compensate Plaintiff and the putative Tip 

Notice Class members at least Florida’s minimum wage for all hours worked.

131. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees 

with positions similarly situated to Plaintiff and who suffered from the same pay practices of not 

being properly paid at least Florida’s minimum wage for each hour worked. 

132. Plaintiff has complied with pre-suit notice, and all other conditions precedent to 

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendant a pre-suit Florida Minimum 

Wage demand letter as required by Florida law before this claim was filed. 

133. More than fifteen (15) calendar days have passed since Defendant received the 

Florida Minimum Wage demand letter and Defendant has failed to tender full payment to 

compensate Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members for the Florida minimum wage damages 

owed. 

134. A class action suit, such as this one, is superior to other available means for fair and 

efficient adjudication of the lawsuit. The damages suffered by individual members of the class 

may be relatively small when compared to the expense and burden of litigation, making it virtually 

impossible for members of the class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them.

135. A class action is, therefore, superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. Absent these actions, many members of the class likely 

will not obtain redress of their damages and Defendant will retain the proceeds of their violations 

of the FMWA and Florida Constitution. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 19 of 25
20

136. Furthermore, even if every member of the class could afford individual litigation 

against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system. Concentrating the 

litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy, efficiency, and parity among the claims of 

individual members of the class and provide for judicial consistency.

137. The relief sought is common to the entire class including, inter alia:

(a) Payment by the Defendant of actual damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution and/or F.S. § 448.110;

(b) Payment by the Defendant of liquidated damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution and/or F.S. § 448.110 as a result of 

Defendant’s intentional and/or willful violations;

(c) Payment by the Defendant of the costs and expenses of this action, including 

reasonable attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

138. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members have sustained damages arising out of 

the same wrongful and company-wide employment policies of Defendant in violation of the 

FMWA and Florida Constitution.

139. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the 

undersigned counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC, 

and award Plaintiff, and the putative class: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum wage damages to be 

paid by Defendant; (b) liquidated damages to be paid by Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs as permitted under Florida law to be paid by Defendant, and any and all such further 

relief as this Court may deem just and reasonable under the circumstances. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 20 of 25
21

COUNT III – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(SUBSTANTIAL SIDE WORK COLLECTIVE)

140. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 - 91 as though set forth fully herein.

141. Defendant claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers during the relevant time period. 

142. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers are/were entitled to be paid full 

federal minimum wage for all hours worked during their employment with Defendant.

143. Plaintiff seeks recovery of federal minimum wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for 

himself and the following collective because of Defendant’s failure to pay federally mandated 

minimum wages:

All Servers who worked for Defendant at Big Louie’s Pizzeria 

in Hollywood, Florida, during the three (3) years preceding this 

lawsuit who were required to spend thirty (30) or more 

continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during 

any shift. 

144. Defendant violated the FLSA because they required servers to spend thirty (30) or 

more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

145. Defendant required Plaintiff and all other servers to spend substantial time working 

on tip supporting work, side work and non-tipped duties and claimed a tip credit for this work 

(instead of paying these employees the full applicable minimum wage). 

146. Because Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees were forced to spend 

thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work, Defendant is not 

permitted to take the applicable tip credit. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 21 of 25
22

147. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the collective members have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for one or 

more weeks of work during the previous three (3) years. 

148. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative 

collective members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES, LLC, 

and award Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wages; (b) 

an equal amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs 

permitted under the FLSA; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and 

reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT IV – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS

(FEDERAL OVERTIME COLLECTIVE)

149. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 91 as though set forth 

fully herein.

150. Plaintiff alleges this claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of 

the FLSA to recover all overtime wages Defendant failed to pay him during the course of his 

employment.

151. In one or more workweeks of his employment Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 

hours per week but was not compensated at the rate of time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate 

for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

152. Defendant knew Plaintiff worked overtime hours, and knew, or should have known, 

of the requirements of the FLSA, and intentionally and/or willfully violated the law and Plaintiff 

is therefore entitled to recover liquidated, or double, damages.

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 22 of 25
23

153. Plaintiff has been required to retain the undersigned counsel to enforce his rights 

under federal law and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC, 

and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated federal overtime wages to be paid by the Defendant; (b) an 

equal amount of liquidated damages to be paid by the Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees 

and litigation costs as permitted under the FLSA to be paid by Defendant; and any and all such 

further relief as this Court may deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT V – FLSA RETALIATION

(solely as to Plaintiff, Windheim)

154. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 91 as though set forth 

fully herein.

155. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), it is unlawful to discharge or in any other manner 

discriminate against an employee because such employee has filed any complaint or caused to be 

instituted any proceeding under or related to the FLSA.

156. Plaintiff had a history of excellent work performance during all time periods 

relevant to his employment with Defendant.

157. On or about April 19, 2022, Defendant was notified through one of its managers, 

Katharine, that Plaintiff had raised complaints concerning unlawful wage and hour and tipping 

practices at Big Louie’s in Hollywood, Florida, that are addressed in this lawsuit.

158. Plaintiff asserted his right to receive federally mandated overtime wages under the 

FLSA and Defendant was made aware of these complaints.

159. Plaintiff advised Defendant that if it did not come into compliance with the FLSA’s 

overtime laws that he would notify the labor board and proceed with vindicating his rights. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 23 of 25
24

160. When Defendant was notified of Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant, through its 

manager Katharine, immediately terminated Plaintiff’s employment via text message.

161. A direct causal relationship exists between Plaintiff asserting his rights under the 

FLSA and the abrupt termination that occurred just minutes after Defendant was made aware of 

these complaints.

162. Any other justification for termination cited by Defendant is mere pretext in an 

attempt to cover-up the true intention behind its actions.

163. Plaintiff has undertaken efforts to mitigate his damages.

164. As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered loss of back pay, 

loss of future pay, loss of reputation, emotional damages, and has been otherwise damaged in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOSHUA WINDHEIM, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, JG RESTAURANT VENTURES LLC, 

and award Plaintiff: (a) all compensatory, economic, and/or emotional damages arising from 

Defendant’s unlawful retaliation under the FLSA and to be paid by Defendant; (b) liquidated 

damages under the FLSA to be paid by Defendant; and (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

incurred as permitted under the FLSA to be paid by Defendant; and any and all such further relief 

as this Court may deem just and equitable under the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand trial by jury on all counts above.

Dated this 7

th of September 2022. 

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 24 of 25
25

Respectfully submitted, 

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS –

JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC

1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Counsel for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

7, 2022. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 0:22-cv-61673-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 25 of 25