UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

BRANDOLYN HENDERSON, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. ______________________

FLSA Collective Action

v.

CDR MAGUIRE, INC. and CDR 

HEALTH CARE, INC.,

Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded

ORIGINAL COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

SUMMARY

1. Brandolyn Henderson (“Henderson” or “Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit to 

recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA).

2. CDR Maguire, Inc. and CDR Health Care, Inc. (together, “CDR”) failed to 

pay Henderson, and other hourly workers, overtime as required by federal law.

3. Instead, CDR paid Henderson, and workers like her, the same hourly rate, even 

when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

4. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages 

owed to Henderson and other hourly workers at CDR.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because this action involves a federal question under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because 

CDR’s principal place of business is in this District.

7. CDR is headquartered in this District and Division.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, Brandolyn Henderson is a natural person.

9. Henderson was, at all relevant times, an employee of CDR.

10. Henderson was an hourly-paid employee of CDR.

11. Henderson worked for CDR from October 2021 to March 2021.

12. Henderson’s written consent is attached as EXHIBIT 1.

13. Henderson seeks to represent a collective of similarly situated employees under 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the “FLSA Collective”). The FLSA Collective is defined as:

All hourly employees of CDR Maguire, Inc. and/or CDR 

Health Care, Inc. who were, at any point in the past three 

years, paid “straight time for overtime.”

14. Throughout this Complaint, the FLSA Collective members are also referred to 

as the “Similarly Situated Workers.”

15. Defendant, CDR Maguire, Inc. (“CDR Maguire”) is a foreign corporation.

16. CDR Maguire maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in this 

District and Division.

17. CDR Maguire may be served by service upon its registered agent, Carlos A. 

Duart, 11740 SW 80th St., Ste. 102, Miami, FL 33183, or by any other method allowed by 

law.

18. Defendant, CDR Health Care, Inc. (“CDR Health Care”) is a domestic

corporation.

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

19. CDR Health Care maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in 

this District and Division.

20. CDR Health Care may be served by service upon its registered agent, Laura 

Farinas, 11740 SW 80th St., Ste. 102, Miami, FL 33183, or by any other method allowed 

by law.

21. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share common employees

22. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share common back-office functions.

23. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share a common website.

24. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share common officers and management.

25. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share a common business purpose.

26. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care share common policies and procedures 

regarding wages and hours of employees, including Plaintiff.

27. At all relevant times, CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care employed and/or 

jointly employed Henderson and the Similarly Situated Workers.

28. CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care are joint employers for purposes of the 

FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.

29. Throughout this Complaint, CDR Maguire and CDR Health Care are referred 

to jointly as “CDR.”

COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA

30. At all relevant times, CDR Maguire was an employer of Henderson within the 

meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

31. At all relevant times, CDR Healthcare was an employer of Henderson within 

the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

32. At all relevant times, CDR was an employer of Henderson within the meaning 

of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

33. At all relevant times, CDR Maguire was an employer of the FLSA Collective 

members within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

34. At all relevant times, CDR Healthcare was an employer of the FLSA Collective 

members within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

35. At all relevant times, CDR was an employer of the FLSA Collective members

within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

36. At all relevant times, CDR has been part of an enterprise within the meaning 

of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

37. During at least the last three years, CDR Maguire has had gross annual sales 

in excess of $500,000.

38. During at least the last three years, CDR Healthcare has had gross annual sales 

in excess of $500,000.

39. During at least the last three years, CDR has had gross annual sales in excess 

of $500,000.

40. During at least the last three years, CDR Maguire was and is part of an 

enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the 

meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). 

41. During at least the last three years, CDR Healthcare was and is part of an 

enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the 

meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). 

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

42. During at least the last three years, CDR was and is part of an enterprise 

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). 

43. During at least the last three years, CDR has employed many workers, 

including Henderson and the FLSA Collective members, who are engaged in commerce or 

in the production of goods for commerce and/or who handle, sell, or otherwise work on 

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.

44. CDR employs many workers, including Henderson and the FLSA Collective 

members, who are engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or 

who handle, sell, or otherwise work on goods or materials that have been moved in or 

produced for commerce by any person.

45. The goods and materials handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by Henderson, 

and other CDR employees and that have been moved in interstate commerce include, but are 

not limited to, construction and office equipment and supplies.

FACTS

46. CDR provides engineering consulting services, emergency management 

solutions, and disaster health and medical services.

47. Henderson was an hourly employee of CDR.

48. CDR never paid Henderson a salary.

49. CDR never paid Henderson on a fee basis.

50. CDR paid Henderson by the hour.

51. CDR paid Henderson $50 per hour for each hour it credited her with working.

52. Henderson reported the hours she worked to CDR on a regular basis.

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

53. Henderson’s hours are reflected in CDR’s records.

54. CDR paid Henderson at the same hourly rate for all hours worked in a 

workweek.

55. CDR did not pay Henderson an overtime premium for all hours worked in 

excess of 40 in a workweek.

56. Instead, CDR paid Henderson “straight time” or her regular hourly rate for all 

overtime hours she worked.

57. Henderson normally worked more than 40 hours in a week.

58. For example, for the week beginning January 22, 2022, Henderson worked 51.5

hours for CDR, or 11.5 overtime hours.

59. For that pay period, CDR paid Henderson at her hourly rate of $50 per hour 

for all 51.5 hours.

60. Thus, rather than receiving time-and-a-half as required by the FLSA for all 

hours over 40 in a workweek, Henderson only received “straight-time” pay for her overtime 

hours worked.

61. This “straight-time-for-overtime” payment scheme violates the FLSA.

62. CDR was aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

63. CDR nonetheless failed to pay certain hourly employees, such as Henderson, 

overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

64. CDR’s failure to pay overtime to these hourly workers was, and is, a willful 

violation of the FLSA.

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

65. CDR’s illegal “straight time for overtime” policy extends well beyond 

Henderson.

66. It is the “straight time for overtime” payment plan that is the “policy that is 

alleged to violate the FLSA” in this FLSA collective action. Bursell v. Tommy’s Seafood 

Steakhouse, No. CIV.A. H-06-0386, 2006 WL 3227334, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2006); see 

also, e.g., Wellman v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc., No. CIV.A. 14-831, 2014 WL 5810529, at *5 

(E.D. La. Nov. 7, 2014) (certifying “straight time for overtime” claim for collective 

treatment).

67. CDR has paid many hourly workers according to the same unlawful scheme.

68. Any differences in job duties do not detract from the fact that these hourly 

workers were entitled to overtime pay.

69. The workers impacted by CDR’s “straight time for overtime” scheme should 

be notified of this action and given the chance to join pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

CAUSE OF ACTION–VIOLATIONS OF THE FLSA

70. Henderson incorporates all prior allegations.

71. By failing to pay Henderson and the FLSA Collective members overtime at 1.5 

times their regular rate of pay, CDR violated the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

72. CDR owes Henderson and the FLSA Collective members overtime for all 

hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rates 

of pay.

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

73. CDR owes Henderson and the FLSA Collective members the difference 

between the rate actually paid for overtime hours, if any, and the proper overtime premium 

rate.

74. CDR knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal 

pattern and practice of failing to pay Henderson and the Collective members the 

compensation owed to them under the FLSA.

75. Because CDR knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, its pay practices 

violated the FLSA, CDR owes these wages for at least the past three years.

76. CDR’s failure to pay compensation owed under the FLSA to Henderson and 

the Collective members was neither reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay overtime 

made in good faith.

JURY DEMAND

77. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Henderson prays for judgment against CDR as follows:

a. For an order certifying a collective action for the FLSA claims;

b. For an order finding CDR liable for violations of federal wage laws with 

respect to Henderson and all FLSA Collective members covered by this 

case;

c. For a judgment awarding all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and 

penalties under federal wage laws to Henderson and all FLSA Collective 

members covered by this case;

d. For a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees to Henderson and all FLSA 

Collective members covered by this case;

e. For a judgment awarding costs of this action to Henderson all FLSA 

Collective members covered by this case;

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

f. For a judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest 

rates allowed by law to Henderson and all FLSA Collective members 

covered by this case; and

b. For all such other and further relief as may be necessary and 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew R. Frisch

Andrew R. Frisch

FBN 27777

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

8151 Peters Road

4th Floor

Plantation, FL 33324

Telephone: (954) WORKERS

Facsimile: (954) 327-3013

Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

-andMatthew S. Parmet

TX Bar # 24069719

(seeking admission pro hac vice)

PARMET PC

3 Riverway, Ste. 1910

Houston, TX 77056

phone 713 999 5228

matt@parmet.law

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23163-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 9 of 9