UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

ZEPHANEAH RENTON, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

5th BITE OF THE APPLE LLC

d/b/a BLACK ROCK BAR & GRILL

FT. LAUDERDALE, a Florida

limited liability company,

Defendant.

/

CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of herself and all others similarly 

situated, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Fla. Stat. § 448.440, and Art. X, 

Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution, files this Class/Collective Action Complaint for Damages and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE LLC d/b/a BLACK ROCK 

BAR & GRILL FT. LAUDERDALE, (hereinafter “Defendant”), for its failure to pay restaurant 

Servers and Bartenders state and federal minimum wages during the relevant time period, as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class/collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida 

Constitution on behalf of herself and all restaurant Servers and Bartenders who work or have 

worked at Black Rock Bar & Grill located at 6200 N. Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

33308, during the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant committed federal and state 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 1 of 35
2

minimum wage violations because it failed to provide Servers and Bartenders with sufficient 

statutorily required tip notice, and compensated Servers and Bartenders at the reduced wage 

notwithstanding that Servers and Bartenders are required to spend more than 20% of their 

workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work. Defendants have also violated state and 

federal law by claiming a tip credit during shifts when Servers and Bartenders are required to spend 

30 or more continuous minutes on side work and non-tipped duties. As a result, Plaintiff, and 

similarly situated Servers and Bartenders have been denied federal and state minimum wages 

during various workweeks within the relevant time period. 

PARTIES

2. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, 

Florida, over the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris. 

3. Plaintiff and the FLSA putative collective members are/were restaurant Servers 

and/or Bartenders who worked for Defendant within the last three (3) years at the Black Rock Bar 

& Grill located at 6200 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. 

4. Plaintiff and the FMWA putative class members are/were restaurant Servers and 

Bartenders who worked for Defendant within the last five (5) years at Black Rock Bar & Grill 

located at 6200 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308.

5. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server and Bartender at Black Rock Bar & Grill 

at 6200 North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from on or about August 19, 2022,

until on or about August 24, 2022. 

6. The proposed collective and class members worked for Defendant in the same 

capacity as Plaintiff in that they were restaurant Servers and/or Bartenders for Defendant at the 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 2 of 35
3

exact same Black Rock Bar & Grill restaurant located at 6200 N. Federal Highway, Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida 33308. 

7. Plaintiff seeks certification of three (3) separate collectives under 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) for violations of the FLSA as follows:

Tip Notice Collective: All servers and bartenders who worked 

for Defendant during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit 

who did not receive proper notice from Defendant that they 

would be taking a tip credit toward the required federal 

minimum wage. 

80/20 Collective: All servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendant during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who 

were required to spend more than 20% of any workweek 

performing non-tipped duties and side work and did not receive 

the full applicable minimum wage for this work. 

Substantial Side Work Collective: All servers and bartenders 

who worked for Defendant on or after December 28, 2021, who 

were required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes 

on non-tipped duties and side work during any shift.

8. Plaintiff seeks certification of three (3) separate classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, 

the FMWA, and Florida Constitution for Florida Minimum Wage violations, as follows:

Tip Notice Class: All servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendant within 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. 

80/20 Class: All servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendant within the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who 

were required to spend more than 20% of any workweek 

performing non-tipped duties and side work and did not receive 

the full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

Substantial Side Work Class: All servers and bartenders who 

worked for Defendant on or after December 28, 2021, who were 

required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on 

non-tipped duties and side work during any shift.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 3 of 35
4

9. The precise size and identity of each collective and class should be ascertainable 

from the business records, tax records, and/or personnel records of Defendants; however, Plaintiff 

estimates that the total number of class members in each class above exceeds 40 restaurant Servers 

and Bartenders.

10. During all times material hereto, Defendant was a Florida limited liability company

operating and transacting business within Broward County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court. 

11. During all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, and controlled the 

Black Rock Bar & Grill located at 6200 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308. 

12. Defendant was the “employer” of Plaintiff and all members of the putative Classes 

and Collectives as that term is defined by the FLSA and FMWA, during all times pertinent to the 

allegations herein. 

13. During all times material hereto, Defendant was vested with control and decisionmaking authority over the hiring, firing, scheduling, day-to-day operations, and pay practices of 

the Black Rock Bar & Grill located at 6200 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308.

14. Defendant implemented uniform pay, tip, and time-keeping practices at the Black 

Rock Bar & Grill that apply to all restaurant Servers and Bartenders. 

15. Plaintiff and putative collective and class members are/were non-exempt, hourly 

restaurant Servers and Bartenders. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and Article X Section 24 of the Florida Constitution to recover 

damages from Defendant, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 4 of 35
5

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

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

18. The acts and/or omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Broward

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

19. Defendant regularly transact business in Broward County, Florida, and jurisdiction 

is therefore proper.

20. Venue is also proper within Broward County, Florida. 

21. Plaintiff fulfilled all conditions precedent required to bring her class action claims 

under the FMWA.

22. More specifically, on or about September 19, 2022, Plaintiff, through her counsel, 

served Defendant with a written pre-suit demand and notice regarding her FMWA claims, 

requesting that Defendant pay her and the putative FMWA classes the minimum wages owed to 

them. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and the FMWA classes the full amount to resolve the 

FMWA claims asserted in the pre-suit notice. 

FLSA COVERAGE

23. Defendant is an enterprise covered by the FLSA by virtue of the fact that it is an 

enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, in that Defendant

had at least two or more employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce, or two (2) or more employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or 

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

24. During all time periods pertinent hereto, Defendant’s employees regularly handled 

goods such as food, beverages, napkins, silverware, appliances, rice, beer, corona extra, corona 

light, vodka, Blue Moon beer, Coors Light beer, Miller Lite beer, Jack Daniels whiskey, Bloody 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 5 of 35
6

Mary mix, honey mustard, meat, chicken, pork, cheese, broccoli, carrots, peas, oil, zucchini, wings, 

mahi mahi, salmon, onions, peppers, crab, vinegar sauce, shrimp, beef, steak, potatoes, bread, hot 

sauce, cheese, marinara sauce, pretzels, buns, nachos, calamari, chicken tenders, jalapenos, other 

food items, restaurant equipment, chairs, tables, vacuum cleaners, pens, paper, receipts, computers, 

credit card processors, staples, toothpicks, mints, flour, sugar, coffee, tea, soda, water bottles, and 

other materials that had previously travelled through interstate commerce. 

25. Defendant had annual gross revenue in excess of $500,000.00 in 2020, 2021 and is 

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

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

26. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a restaurant Server and Bartender during her 

employment period.

DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIP CREDIT

27. When Defendant hires Servers and Bartenders it pays these individuals below the 

applicable federal and state minimum wage but fail to provide the required sufficient notice of the 

tip credit under federal and Florida law.

28. During Plaintiff’s employment period, Defendant did not: (1) provide statutorily 

required tip notice under federal and/or Florida law; (2) pay the applicable federal and/or Florida 

minimum wage; or (3) track the time Servers or Bartenders spent performing side work and nontipped duties.

29. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Collective members are entitled to recover at least 

federal minimum wage for each hour spent performing work. 

30. Similarly, Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members are entitled to recover at least 

the Florida minimum wage for each hour spent performing “work. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 6 of 35
7

31. Moreover, during all times material hereto, Defendant claimed a tip credit under 

federal and Florida law and paid Plaintiff and all other Servers and Bartenders the reduced wage 

for tipped employees, including during shifts when they spent a substantial amount of continuous 

time performing directly supporting side work and/or non-tipped duties for 30 or more minutes.

DEFENDANT REQUIRES PLAINTIFF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED SERVERS AND 

BARTENDERS TO SPEND MORE THAN 20% OF THE WORKWEEK ON NON-TIPPED 

DUTIES AND SIDE WORK 

32. Federal law prohibits employers from taking a tip credit when an employee 

performs non-tip generating duties for more than 20% of their workweek. Rafferty v. Denny’s 

Inc., 13 F4th 1166, 1188 (11th Cir. 2021). In other words, when restaurant servers and bartenders 

spend 20% or more of any respective workweek on non-tip generating duties and side work, they 

must be paid the full applicable minimum wage, as opposed to the reduced minimum wage for 

tipped employees. Id. 

33. Defendant claimed a tip credit for all of Plaintiff’s work, including training and

during workweeks in which Plaintiff spent more than 20% of her time on non-tip producing duties 

and side work. 

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant paid Servers and Bartenders the reduced 

cash wage of $5.54 per hour in 2020, $5.63 per hour from January 1, 2021, through September 29, 

2021, and $6.98 per hour from September 30, 2021, through September 29, 2022, and $7.98 from 

September 30, 2022, through the present. 

35. Prior to opening the restaurant, for period of more than thirty (30) continuous 

minutes – Defendant instructed Plaintiff and all other similarly situated restaurant Servers and 

Bartenders to unstack chairs, wipe down surfaces, prepare lights and signs, prepare and stock 

server stations, clean glasses, cut fruit, fill salt and pepper shakers, roll silverware, set tables, clean 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 7 of 35
8

the beverage stations, clean tables, clean condiments, clean the outside of the restaurant, sweep the 

floor, make coffee, brew tea, make drinks, and perform additional side work and “non-tipped” 

duties which are merely incidental or completely unrelated to the employees’ tipped duties. 

36. Furthermore, prior to the restaurant opening to the public, Servers and Bartenders 

were paid the reduced wage, even though the restaurant was closed, and its employees could not 

earn any tips. 

37. When working a closing shift, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers and 

Bartenders are required to remain at the restaurant after the kitchen is closed and customers have 

left for more than 30 continuous minutes. 

38. Throughout their shifts, Plaintiff and the putative class and collective members 

were required to perform the same “non-tipped” duties side work as outlined in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

39. At a minimum, Plaintiff and other Servers and Bartenders spent more than 20% of 

the workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

40. As a result, Plaintiff and members of the putative collectives and classes are entitled 

to recover the applicable tip credit for the time they spent performing “non-tipped” incidental 

duties and side work during each workweek, as opposed to the reduced wage they received. 

41. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Collective members are entitled to recover at least federal 

minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side work during 

workweeks in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the workweek. 

42. Similarly, Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members are entitled to recover at least the 

Florida minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side work during 

workweeks in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the workweek. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 8 of 35
9

DEFEENDANT REQUIRES PLAINTIFF AND ALL OTHER SERVERS AND 

BARTENDERS TO SPEND 30 OR MORE CONTINUOUS MINUTES ON NON-TIPPED 

DUTIES AND SIDE WORK DURING EACH SHIFT 

43. Directly supporting 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).

44. 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. 

45. During all times material hereto, Defendant required Servers and Bartenders to 

arrive at opening shifts more than 30 minutes before the restaurant was open to the public.1

46. Moreover, during all times material hereto, Defendant required Servers and 

Bartenders to perform side work and non-tipped duties for 30 or more continuous minutes at the 

end of closing shifts, often when servers and bartenders did not have any customers and the 

restaurant was closed to the public. 

47. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Collective members are entitled to recover

at least federal minimum wage for each the time spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side 

work which equals or exceeds 30 continuous minutes per shift. 

48. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members are entitled to recover at 

least the Florida minimum wage for the time spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side work 

which equals or exceeds 30 continuous minutes per shift. 

1 On information and belief, the restaurant typically opens to the public at approximately 3pm on 

weekdays and 11am on weekends. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 9 of 35
10

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

49. Class members are treated equally and similarly at the Black Rock Bar & Grill

restaurant owned and operated by Defendant, in that they were never provided the required

statutory tip notice under Florida law.

50. Class members are treated equally and similarly at the Black Rock Bar & Grill 

restaurant that is owned and operated by Defendant, in that at least forty (40) putative class 

memberstwere not provided the required tip notice under Florida law during the past five (5) years. 

51. Class members are treated equally and similarly at the Black Rock Bar & Grill

restaurant that is owned and operated by Defendant, in that they were denied state minimum wages 

when they spent more than 20% of a workweek performing “non-tipped” duties and side work. 

52. Class members are treated equally and similarly at the Black Rock Bar & Grill

restaurant owned and operated by Defendant, in that they were denied state minimum wages during 

shifts when they were required to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and 

side work.

53. Defendant employed at least forty (40) Servers and Bartenders at their restaurant 

who were required to spend at least 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side 

work during the past five (5) years.

54. Defendant employed at least forty (40) Servers and Bartenders at their restaurant

who were required to spend at least 30 continuous minutes per shift on non-tipped duties and side 

work during any shift on or after December 28, 2021, through the present. 

55. At all times material hereto, Defendant had express or constructive knowledge of 

the work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 10 of 35
11

56. Moreover, at all times material hereto, Defendant had express or constructive 

knowledge of the time Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked but failed to keep 

and maintain accurate time records, thereby violating state and federal law. 

57. Plaintiff and the class members performed the same or substantially similar job 

duties for Defendant at their restaurant, as restaurant Servers and Bartenders, and were otherwise 

paid in an identical manner by Defendant.

58. During their employment, Plaintiff and one or more members of the class 

complained about the illegal practices above; however, Defendant took no action to stop their

illegal pay practices. 

59. Although Defendant was aware of the requirements of the FLSA, Florida 

Constitution and FMWA, and the pertinent regulations thereto, Defendant willfully and/or 

intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff and the class members in accordance with state and federal law. 

COUNT I – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(TIP NOTICE CLASS)

60. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though set forth 

fully herein.

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

minimum wage requirements by taking a tip credit toward the applicable Florida minimum wage 

but failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class members the statutorily required tip notice within 

the past 5 years. 

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

and Bartender at least $3.02 for each hour of work they performed within the past 5 years.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 11 of 35
12

63. On or about September 19, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with a written pre-suit 

Notice pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.110, on behalf of herself, and a class of all similarly situated 

Servers and Bartenders.

64. More than 15 days have elapsed since Plaintiff served Defendant with her written 

pre-suit Notice and Defendant has failed to tender full payment to Plaintiff and the class.

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

66. From January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021, the Florida Minimum Wage 

was $8.65 per hour.

67. From September 30, 2021, through the September 29, 2022, the Florida Minimum 

Wage was $10.00 per hour.

68. From September 30, 2022, through the present the Florida Minimum Wage is/was

$11.00 per hour.

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

violations of the FMWA and Florida Constitution. 

70. Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following class for 

Defendant’s failure to pay Florida minimum wages:

All servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant 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

71. 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”). 

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

Defendant, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wages based on Defendant’s

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 12 of 35
13

failure to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated Servers and Bartenders proper notice of 

Defendant’s intent to rely upon a tip credit under Florida law. 

73. 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; nevertheless, Defendant claimed

a tip credit for these employees. Given Defendant’s considerable size and the systematic nature of 

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

all members is impractical. 

74. Plaintiff and the class members were subject to the same employment policies. 

75. 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 taking a tip credit; (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 (f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the 

Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class based upon Defendant’s conduct.

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

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

and bartenders a reduced wage without providing statutorily required notice of taking a tip credit. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 13 of 35
14

77. 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 her claims against Defendant vigorously and has retained counsel 

competent and experienced in class and complex litigation.

78. 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. 

79. 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. 

80. 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. 

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

Servers and Bartenders, 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 

Defendant claimed a tip credit. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 14 of 35
15

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

wage during the relevant time period.

83. 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.

84. 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 and 

bartenders. 

85. This action is intended to include each and every Server and/or Bartender who 

worked at Defendant’s restaurant, during the past five (5) years who was not provided the requisite 

tip credit notice during any workweek. 

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

non-exempt employees of Defendant. 

87. Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members performed work as Servers and 

Bartenders which was an integral part of Defendant’s business. 

88. Defendant violated the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision on minimum 

wages by not providing Plaintiff and the putative Tip Notice Class members the requisite tip credit 

notice. 

89. 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. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 15 of 35
16

90. 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. 

91. 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.

92. 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. 

93. 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.

94. The relief sought is common to the entire class including, inter alia: (a) Payment by 

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 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 Defendant of the costs 

and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 16 of 35
17

95. 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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, individually, and award Plaintiff, and the putative class: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum 

wage damages to be paid by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully claimed by Defendants, to be 

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

fees and costs permitted under Fla. Stat. § 448.110 and 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. 

COUNT II – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(TIP NOTICE COLLECTIVE)

96. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though set forth 

fully herein.

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

workweeks for certain hours worked during her employment with Defendant.

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

and all other Servers and Bartenders with requisite notice of the tip credit required under federal 

law.

99. Plaintiff and the putative collective of servers and bartenders are therefore entitled 

to receive full federal minimum wage at the rate of $7.25 per hour for every hour of work within 

the previous three (3) years.

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

federal minimum wage, contrary to the FLSA. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 17 of 35
18

101. 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 her employment with Defendant. 

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

additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff, and the putative collective: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wage 

damages to be paid by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully claimed by Defendants, payable 

jointly and severally; (c) liquidated damages to be paid by Defendant; (d) 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 deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT III – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 CLASS)

103. Plaintiff hereby re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though set forth fully herein.

104. Defendant claimed a tip credit under Florida law for each hour of work performed 

by Plaintiff and all other Servers and Bartenders during the previous five (5) years (including

training periods). 

105. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid Florida’s full minimum wage during their employment with Defendant.

106. Plaintiff and the proposed class members were subjected to similar violations of 

Florida law as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay them the full state minimum wage when they 

were required to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side 

work. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 18 of 35
19

107. Plaintiff seeks recovery of Florida minimum wages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for 

herself and the following class for Defendants’ failure to pay constitutionally mandated state

minimum wages:

All servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant during 

the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who were required to 

spend more than 20% of any workweek performing non-tipped 

duties and side work and did not receive the full applicable

Florida minimum wage.

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

108. Plaintiff brings her FMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the above class.

109. The putative 80/20 Class members are treated equally and similarly by Defendant, 

in that they were denied Florida minimum wages based upon the Defendant requiring Plaintiff and 

similarly situated servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing 

non-tipped duties and side work. 

110. Numerosity: Defendant employed at least 40 servers and bartenders at their 

restaurant during the past five (5) years who were required to spend at least 20% of their workweek 

performing non-tipped duties and side work and were not paid the pertinent Florida minimum 

wage. Given Defendant’s size and the systematic nature of their failure to comply with Florida 

law, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

111. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members were victims of the same policies, including 

Defendant’s requirement that employees spend at least 20% of each workweek performing nontipped duties and side work. 

112. 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, 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 19 of 35
20

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

following: (a) Whether Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members were “employees” of Defendant;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class’s hours were properly recorded; (c) Whether Defendant 

violated the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class under the FMWA and 

Florida Constitution by failing to compensate the putative class the full state minimum wage when 

they spent more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work; (d) 

Whether Defendant willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class Florida 

minimum wages; (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 and time keeping practices; and (f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered 

by the Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class.

113. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the 80/20 

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

and bartenders to spend more than 20% of their workweek on non-tipped duties and side work 

without being paid the full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

114. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 80/20 

Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the 80/20 Class. Plaintiff is 

determined to pursue her claims against Defendant vigorously and has retained counsel competent 

and experienced in class and employment litigation.

115. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 20 of 35
21

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. 

116. Defendant acted on grounds generally applicable to the 80/20 Class, thereby 

making relief appropriate with respect to the 80/20 Class as a whole. Prosecution of separate 

actions by individual members of the 80/20 Class would create the risk of varying adjudications 

with respect to the individual members of the 80/20 Class that would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for Defendant. 

117. The identity of the 80/20 Class is readily identifiable from Defendant’s records.

118. 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 80/20 Class. 

119. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members performed the same job duties, as restaurant 

servers and bartenders, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendant based on Defendant 

requiring restaurant servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of shifts and workweeks on 

non-tipped duties and side work without paying the restaurant servers and bartenders at least the 

full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

120. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members were not paid proper Florida minimum 

wages when their non-tipped duties and side work exceeded 20% of any workweek within the 

statute of limitations. 

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

regulations thereto, yet acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members in 

accordance with the law.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 21 of 35
22

122. This action is intended to include each and every restaurant server and bartender 

who worked for Defendant at their restaurant during the past five (5) years who was required to 

spend more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

123. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all 80/20 Class members are/were 

non-exempt employees of Defendant. 

124. Restaurant servers’ and bartenders’ work for Defendants is an integral part of 

Defendant’s business. 

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

on minimum wages by not paying Plaintiff and the putative class members at least Florida’s 

minimum wage for all hours worked.

126. In 2020, the Florida minimum wage was $8.56 per hour.

127. From January 1, 2021, until September 29, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was 

$8.65 per hour. 

128. From September 30, 2021, through the September 29, 2022, the Florida Minimum 

Wage was $10.00 per hour.

129. From September 30, 2023, through the present, the Florida Minimum Wage is/was

$11.00 per hour.

130. During their employment, Plaintiff and one or more of the 80/20 Class members 

complained about the illegal practices above; however, Defendant took no action to stop any of 

the illegal practices. 

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

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendant a Florida minimum wage 

demand before this claim was filed. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 22 of 35
23

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

Florida minimum wage demand letter and no payment has been tendered by Defendant to 

compensate Plaintiff and the putative 80/20 Class for the minimum wages owed. 

133. A class action is 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. 

134. Furthermore, even if every member of the 80/20 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.

135. The relief Plaintiff seeks 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 Minimum Wage Act and Florida Constitution; (b) Payment by the 

Defendant of liquidated damages caused by their intentional and/or willful failure to pay minimum 

wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Florida Constitution; (c) Payment by the 

Defendant of the costs and expenses of this action, including attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

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

Plaintiff and the 80/20 Class members have been damaged in the loss of Florida minimum wages 

for one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendant. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 23 of 35
24

wages payable by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully taken by Defendants; (c) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages, payable by Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and 

litigation costs permitted by the Florida Constitution and Fla. Stat. § 448.110 to be paid by 

Defendant; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable under the 

circumstances.

COUNT IV - COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 COLLECTIVE)

137. Plaintiff hereby re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though set forth fully herein.

138. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid full federal minimum wage for certain hours worked during their employment with 

Defendant.

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

Servers and Bartenders during all times material hereto (including training periods). 

140. However, Plaintiff and the proposed collective members were subjected to similar 

violations of federal law as a result of the Defendant’s failure to pay them the full minimum wage 

when they were required to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties 

and side work. 

141. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative collective members the 

full federal minimum wage for one or more weeks of work. 

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

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

one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendant. 

143. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative

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

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 24 of 35
25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated federal minimum 

wages payable by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully taken by Defendant; (c) an equal amount 

of liquidated damages payable by Defendant; (d) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs 

permitted under the FLSA payable by Defendant; and any and all such further relief as the Court 

deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT V – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(SUBSTANTIAL SIDE WORK CLASS)

144. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though set forth 

fully herein.

145. Defendant claimed a tip credit for each hour of work performed by Plaintiff and all 

other Servers and Bartenders during all times material hereto (including the training period). 

146. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers and bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid full Florida minimum wage for each hour worked during their employment with 

Defendant.

147. Plaintiff seeks recovery of Florida minimum wages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for 

herself and the following Substantial Side Work Class because of Defendants’ failure to pay 

Florida’s constitutionally mandated minimum wages:

All servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant on or 

after December 28, 2021, who were required to spend thirty (30) 

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

during any shift. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 25 of 35
26

148. Pursuant to state and federal law, any side work consisting of thirty (30) or more 

continuous minutes is considered “substantial” side work and must be paid at the full applicable 

minimum wage. 

149. Moreover, state and federal law forbids employers from claiming a tip credit 

whenever tipped employees are required to spend substantial time on side work and non-tipped 

duties. 

150. Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders the 

full Florida minimum wage, including during shifts when they were required to spend thirty (30) 

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

151. Defendant required Plaintiff all other servers and bartenders to arrive at opening 

shifts at least 30-minutes to 1-hour before Defendant’s restaurant opened to the public. During this 

time, Defendant claimed a tip credit of approximately $3.02 per hour and paid Plaintiff and all 

other servers and bartenders less than the applicable state minimum wage. 

152. Moreover, Defendant required Plaintiff all other servers and bartenders to spend a 

minimum of 30-minutes to 1-hour during each closing shift on side work and non-tipped duties, 

including when the restaurant’s kitchen was closed and when tipped employees could not earn 

tips. During this time, Defendant claimed a tip credit of approximately $3.02 per hour and paid 

Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders less than the applicable state minimum wage. 

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

at least thirty (30) continuous minutes each shift on side work and non-tipped duties, Defendant 

are not permitted to take the applicable tip credit for this work and committed categorical Florida 

minimum wage violations when these regulations went into effect on December 28, 2021. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 26 of 35
27

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all restaurant servers and bartenders who worked 

for Defendant at their restaurant since December 28, 2021, who were required to spend thirty (30) 

or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. 

155. The putative Substantial Side Work Class members are treated equally and 

similarly by Defendant, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wages based 

upon the Defendant’s class-wide requirement for servers and bartenders to spend thirty (30) or 

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

156. Numerosity: Defendant employed at least 40 restaurant servers and bartenders at 

their restaurant since December 28, 2021, who were not paid Florida minimum wages as a result 

Defendant’s requirement that these employees spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes 

during each shift on non-tipped duties and side work. Given Defendant’s size and the systematic 

nature of their failure to comply with Florida law, the members of the Class are so numerous that 

joinder of all members is impractical. 

157. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members were victim to the same 

employment policies, including Defendant’s requirement for these employees to spend thirty (30) 

or more continuous minutes during each shift on non-tipped duties and side work. 

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

Substantial Side Work Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual 

member of the Substantial Side Work Class, including Plaintiff. Such questions common to the 

Substantial Side Work Class include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Whether Plaintiff 

and the Substantial Side Work Class were “employees” of Defendant; (b) Whether Plaintiff and 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 27 of 35
28

the Substantial Side Work Class’s hours were properly recorded; (c) Whether Defendant violated 

the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class under the 

Florida Minimum Wage Act and Florida Constitution by requiring servers and bartenders to spend 

thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties on side work; (d) Whether Defendant 

willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class Florida 

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

wage requirements and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate proper timekeeping and payroll practices; and (f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the 

Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class based upon Defendant’s conduct.

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

Substantial Side Work Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Defendant’s company-wide 

requirement for servers and bartenders to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on nontipped duties and side work each shift. 

160. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Substantial 

Side Work Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the Substantial 

Side Work Class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing her claims against Defendant vigorously and 

has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and employment litigation.

161. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 28 of 35
29

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

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

162. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Substantial Side Work 

Class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the Substantial Side Work Class as a 

whole. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Substantial Side Work Class 

would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual 

members of the Substantial Side Work Class that would establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendant. 

163. 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 Substantial Side Work Class. 

164. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members performed the same job 

duties, as restaurant servers and bartenders, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendant. 

Defendant requires all servers and bartenders to spend substantial time on non-tipped duties and 

side work during each shift, including 30 or more continuous minutes during opening and closing 

shifts when Defendant’s restaurant is not open to the public. This caused state minimum wage 

violations during various workweeks after December 28, 2021. 

165. Defendant was aware of the requirements of the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s 

Minimum Wage Amendment, and the pertinent regulations thereto, yet acted willfully in failing 

to pay Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members in accordance with the law.

166. 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 29 of 35
30

estimates that the total number of putative Substantial Side Work Class members exceeds 40 

restaurant servers and bartenders. 

167. This action is intended to include each and every restaurant server and bartender 

who worked for Defendant since December 28, 2021, who was required to spend thirty (30) or 

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

168. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all Substantial Side Work Class 

members were non-exempt server and bartender employees of Defendant. 

169. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members performed work as 

restaurant servers and bartenders which was integral to Defendant’s business operations. 

170. Defendant violated the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision on minimum 

wages by not paying Plaintiff and the putative Substantial Side Work Class members at least 

Florida’s minimum wage for some hours worked.

171. From September 30, 2021, through the September 29, 2022, the Florida Minimum 

Wage was $10.00 per hour.

172. From September 30, 2023, through the present, the Florida Minimum Wage is/was

$11.00 per hour.

173. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are servers and 

bartenders who were required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties 

and side work during any shift after December 28, 2021. 

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

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendant a Florida minimum wage 

demand letter before this claim was filed. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 30 of 35
31

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

Florida minimum wage demand letter and no payment has been tendered by Defendant to 

compensate Plaintiff and the putative Substantial Side Work Class their Florida minimum wages. 

176. 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 Florida minimum wages pursuant 

to the Florida Constitution and Florida Minimum Wage Act; (b) Payment by the Defendant of 

liquidated damages caused by their failure to pay Florida minimum wages pursuant to the Florida 

Constitution and Florida Minimum Wage Act 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 

attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel. 

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

Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members have been damaged in the loss of Florida 

minimum wages for one or more weeks of work after December 28, 2021. 

178. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations state law entitle Plaintiff and the

putative Substantial Side Work Class members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, 

damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum 

wages payable by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully taken by Defendant; (c) an equal amount 

of liquidated damages, payable by Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs 

permitted by the Florida Constitution and Fla. Stat. § 448.110 payable by Defendant; and any and

all such further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 31 of 35
32

COUNT VI – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(SUBSTANTIAL SIDE WORK COLLECTIVE)

179. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though fully set forth

herein.

180. Defendant claimed a tip credit under federal law for each hour of work for Plaintiff 

and all other Servers and Bartenders during the relevant time period. 

181. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders are/were entitled to 

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

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

herself all other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders who were required to spend thirty (30) 

or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during any workweek after 

December 28, 2021. 

183. Defendant violated the FLSA because they required Servers and Bartenders to 

spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

184. Defendant required Plaintiff and all other Servers and Bartenders 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 federal minimum 

wage). 

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

thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on tip supporting work, non-tipped duties and side work, 

Defendant is not permitted to take the applicable tip credit under federal law. 

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 32 of 35
33

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

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

one or more weeks of work. 

187. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated federal minimum 

wages payable by Defendant; (b) the tip credit unlawfully taken by Defendant; (c) an equal amount 

of liquidated damages payable by Defendant; (d) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs 

permitted under the FLSA payable by Defendant; and any and all such further relief as the Court 

deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT VII – FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

188. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 60 as though fully set forth 

herein.

189. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid full federal minimum wage for one or more hours 

worked during her employment with Defendant.

190. In one or more workweeks of Plaintiff’s employment the Defendant failed to pay 

Plaintiff for all hours worked resulting in federal minimum wage violations. 

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

192. 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. 

193. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff to an additional 

amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 33 of 35
34

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, 5th BITE OF THE APPLE 

LLC, and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wages payable by Defendant; (b) an 

equal amount of liquidated damages payable by Defendant; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and 

litigation costs permitted under the FLSA payable by Defendant; and any and all such further relief 

as the Court deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ZEPHANEAH RENTON, on behalf of herself and each collective and class demands

a trial by jury on all appropriate claims. 

Date: November 9, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

9, 2022. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1018372

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 34 of 35
35

SERVICE LIST

SCOTT BASSMAN, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 232180

scott.bassman@csklegal.com

MELISSA SCOTT, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 1010123

melissa.scott@csklegal.com

COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

110 Tower, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2700

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 703-3700

Fax: (954) 703-3701

Counsel for Defendant

Case 0:22-cv-62082-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 35 of 35