COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 1 –

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DURINA JUAREZ, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CENTEX BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, 

L.C. D/B/A THE LANDING STRIP; 

THEO POLAKIS; LAMPROS 

MOUMOURIS; GEORGE DOE AND 

CORY DOE, individuals,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No.: 1:20-cv-309

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff DURINA JUAREZ, (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, alleges the following upon information and belief, based upon investigation of 

counsel, published reports, and personal knowledge: 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendants CENTEX BUSINESS 

CONSULTANTS, L.C. D/B/A THE LANDING STRIP; THEO POLAKIS; LAMPROS 

MOUMOURIS; GEORGE DOE AND CORY DOE (“Defendants”) for damages resulting from

Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.(“FLSA”) and illegally absconding with Plaintiff’s tips.

2. Defendants own and operate a strip club named THE LANDING STRIP. These 

causes of action arise from Defendants’ willful actions while Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendants from approximately November 2019 through January 2020. Throughout her 

employment with Defendants, Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 2 –

overtime as part of Defendants scheme to classify Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as 

“independent contractors.” As the Department of Labor explained in a recent Administrative

Interpretation:

Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is found in an 

increasing number of workplaces in the United States, in part reflecting 

larger restructuring of business organizations. When employers 

improperly classify employees as independent contractors, the employees 

may not receive important workplace protections such as the minimum 

wage, overtime compensation, unemployment insurance, and workers’ 

compensation. Misclassification also results in lower tax revenues for

government and an uneven playing field for employers who properly

classify their workers. Although independent contracting relationships

can be advantageous for workers and businesses, some employees may

be intentionally misclassified as a means to cut costs and avoid compliance

with labor laws.1

As alleged in more detail below, this is exactly what the Defendants are doing in this case. 

3. Plaintiff worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 745 U.S. 

Highway 183 (Bastrop Highway), Austin, Texas 78741.

4. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all 

hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 of the FLSA.

5. Defendants’ conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees 

to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half (1 1⁄2) times their regular 

rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

6. Furthermore, Defendants’ practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 203(m), violates the FLSA’s minimum wage provision. See 29 U.S.C. § 206.

7. Plaintiff brings a collective action to recover the unpaid overtime compensation 

and minimum wage owed to her individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

1 See DOL Admin. Interp. No. 2015-1, available at

http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI- 2015_1.pdf.

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 3 –

employees, current and former, of Defendants. Members of the Collective Action are hereinafter 

referred to as “FLSA Class Members.”

8. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members 

seek to recover double damages for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime liquidated damages, 

interest, and attorneys’ fees.

II. PARTIES

9. Plaintiff is an individual adult resident of the State of Texas. Furthermore, 

Plaintiff is employed by Defendants and qualifies as an “employee” of Defendants as defined by 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). Her consent to this action is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

10. The FLSA Class Members are all current and former exotic dancers who worked 

at The Landing Strip at any time starting three (3) years before this Complaint was filed, up to 

the present.

11. CENTEX BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, L.C. D/B/A THE LANDING STRIP

(“THE LANDING STRIP”) is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business at 745 

Bastrop Highway, Austin, Texas 78741. At all times mentioned herein, THE LANDING STRIP

was an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). 

THE LANDING STRIP may be served via its agent for service of process, Theo Polakis, 745 

Bastrop Highway, Austin, Texas 78741.

12. THEO POLAKIS (“Polakis”) is the President and Director of THE LANDING 

STRIP and may be served at 745 Bastrop Highway, Austin, Texas 78741 or wherever he may be 

found.

13. Polakis is the owner who executed the policies regarding payment to dancers and 

management of dancers, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff will also name other individuals who are 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 4 –

personally liable under the FLSA.

14. Polakis acted directly or indirectly on behalf of The Landing Strip and, at all 

times mentioned herein was an “employer” or “joint employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning 

of the FLSA. He exerted operational and management control over Defendant, including day to 

day management. He was, and is, frequently present at, owned, directed, controlled and 

managed the operations at Defendants. He also controlled the nature, pay structure, and 

employment relationship of Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members. Polakis had at all times 

relevant to this lawsuit, the authority to hire and fire employees of Defendant, the authority to 

direct and supervise the work of employees, the authority to sign on the business’ checking 

accounts, including payroll accounts, and the authority to make decisions regarding employee 

compensation and capital expenditures. Additionally, he was responsible for the day-to-day 

affairs of Defendant. In particular, he was responsible for determining whether Defendant

complied with the FLSA.

15. LAMPROS MOUMOURIS (“Moumouris”) is the Vice President, Secretary and 

Director of THE LANDING STRIP and may be served at 745 Bastrop Highway, Austin, Texas 

78741 or wherever he may be found. 

16. The true names, capacities or involvement, whether individual, corporate, 

governmental or associate, of all managers and owners of Defendant are unknown to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when 

the same have been finally determined. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such 

information and belief alleges thereon, that each of the unknown Defendants is negligently, 

intentionally, strictly liable or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and 

happenings herein referred to, and negligently, strictly liable intentionally or otherwise caused 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 5 –

injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff, as is hereinafter alleged. 

17. At all material times, Defendants have been an enterprise in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1) of the FLSA 

because they have had employees at their club engaged in commerce, which has travelled in 

interstate commerce. Moreover, because of Defendants’ interrelated activities, they function in 

interstate commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

18. Furthermore, Defendants have had, and continue to have, an annual gross 

business volume in excess of the statutory standard.

19. At all material times during the three (3) years prior to the filing of this action, 

Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers employed by Defendants as “independent 

contractors” and have failed and refused to pay wages or compensation to such 

dancers/entertainers. Plaintiff was an individual employee who engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times herein, Defendants

engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the 

conduct of its employees and agents, and other Defendants and are vicariously or strictly liable 

for the wrongful conduct of its employees and agents as alleged herein.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that, each of the 

Defendants acted, in all respects pertinent to this action, as the agent or employee of each other, 

and carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respect thereto and, therefore, the 

acts of each of these Defendants are legally attributable to the other Defendants, and that these 

Defendants, in all respects, acted as employers and/or joint employers of Plaintiff in that each of 

them exercised control over her wage payments and control over her duties.

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 6 –

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that, at all relevant 

times, each and every Defendant has been the agent, employee, representative, servant, master, 

employer, owner, agent, joint venture, and alter ego of each of the other and each was acting 

within the course and scope of his or her ownership, agency, service, joint venture and 

employment.

23. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was the successor of the 

other and each assumes the responsibility for the acts and omissions of all other Defendant.

III. VENUE AND JURSIDICTION

24. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 because this action arises under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.

25. Venue is proper in this District because all or a substantial portion of the events 

forming the basis of this action occurred in this District. Defendants’ club is located in this 

District and Plaintiff worked in this District. 

IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

A. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

26. Defendant operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 745 

Bastrop Highway, Austin, Texas 78741. The picture below depicts the outside of the Club.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 7 –

27. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were “employer(s)” or “joint 

employer(s)” of Plaintiff. 

28. At all times during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the instant action, 

Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers employed by Defendants as “independent 

contractors” and have failed and refused to pay wages to such dancers. 

29. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants exercised a great deal of 

operational and management control over the subject club, particularly in the areas of terms and 

conditions of employment applicable to dancers and entertainers. 

30. Plaintiff began working as a dancer for Defendants in November 2019 through 

January 2020.

31. The primary duty of an entertainer is to dance and entertain customers and give 

them a good experience. Specifically, an entertainer performs stage and table dances, and 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 8 –

entertains customers on an hourly basis. 

32. Stated differently, entertainers dance on stage, perform table dances, and 

entertain customers in VIP rooms, all while nude or semi-nude. 

33. Plaintiff worked and performed at the adult-oriented entertainment facility

multiple shifts per week. Plaintiff was an integral part of Defendants’ business which operated 

solely as an adult-oriented entertainment facility featuring nude or semi-nude female 

entertainers. 

34. Defendants did not pay entertainers on an hourly basis. 

35. Defendants exercised significant control over Plaintiff during her shifts, and 

Defendants required Plaintiff to work an entire shift.

36. Defendants set prices for all VIP performances. 

37. Defendants charge the dancers a late fee if they do not arrive for a shift on time. 

38. Defendants controlled the means and manner in which Plaintiff could perform.

39. Defendants had the authority to suspend, fine, fire, or otherwise discipline 

entertainers for non-compliance with their rules regarding dancing. 

40. Defendants actually suspended, fined, fired, or otherwise disciplined entertainers 

for non-compliance with their rules regarding dancing. 

41. Plaintiff was compensated exclusively through tips from Defendants’ customers. 

That is, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours worked at their 

establishment.

42. Defendants also required Plaintiff to share her tips with Defendants, other nonservice employees who do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, 

and the house mother.

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 9 –

43. Defendants are in violation of the FLSA’s tipped-employee compensation 

provision, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), which requires employers to pay a tipped employee a minimum 

of $2.13 per hour. Defendants also violated 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) when they failed to notify the 

Plaintiff about the tip credit allowance (including the amount to be credited) before the credit 

was utilized. That is, Defendants’ exotic dancers were never made aware of how the tip credit 

allowance worked or what the amounts to be credited were. Furthermore, Defendants violated 

29 U.S.C. § 203(m) because they did not allow Plaintiff to retain all of her tips and instead 

required that she divide her tips amongst other employees who do not customarily and regularly 

receive tips. Because Defendants violated the tip-pool law, Defendants lose the right to take a 

credit toward minimum wage.

44. Defendants provided and paid for all advertising and marketing efforts 

undertaken on behalf of Defendants.

45. Defendants paid for the building used by Defendants’ maintenance of the facility, 

the sound system, stages, lights, beverages and inventory used at the facility. 

46. Defendants made all hiring decisions regarding wait staff, security, entertainers, 

managerial and all other employees on the premises. 

47. Defendants’ opportunity for profit and loss far exceeded Plaintiff’s opportunity 

for profit and loss from work at The Landing Strip.

48. Nude dancing is an integral part of Defendants’ operations. Defendants’ 

advertising prominently displays nude dancing for its customers. The Landing Strip is well 

known as a “strip club.”

49. Defendants need entertainers to successfully and profitably operate their business 

model. 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 10 –

50. The position of entertainer requires no managerial skill of others.

51. The position of entertainer requires little other skill or education, formal or 

otherwise. 

52. The only requirements to become an entertainer at The Landing Strip are 

“physical attributes” and the ability to dance seductively. The amount of skill required is more 

akin to an employment position than that of a typical independent contractor. 

53. Defendants failed to maintain records of wages, fines, fees, tips and gratuities 

and/or service charges paid or received by entertainers.

54. Plaintiff was not paid an hourly minimum wage or any hourly wage or salary 

despite being present at Defendants’ facility and required to work and entertain its customers at 

any time during a seven-plus (7+) hour work shift.

55. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at one-and-a-half (11⁄2) times the regular 

minimum wage rate for any hours worked despite being present at Defendants’ facility and 

required to work and entertain its customers for longer than eight (8) hours per shift. 

56. The FLSA Class Members had the same pay structure and were under the same 

controls as Plaintiff. 

57. Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members would work over forty (40) hours in some 

weeks each worked for Defendants.

58. Defendants have never paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members any amount 

as wages whatsoever and have instead unlawfully required Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members 

to pay them for the privilege of working.

59. The only source of monies received by Plaintiff (and the class she seeks to

represent) relative to her employment with Defendants came in the form of gratuities received 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 10 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 11 –

directly from customers, a portion of which Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members were 

required to pay to Defendants. 

60. Although Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members are required to and do in fact 

frequently work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, they are not compensated at the 

FLSA mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of forty (40) per workweek. In fact, 

they receive no compensation whatsoever from Defendants and thus, Defendants violate the 

minimum wage requirement of FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 206.

61. Defendants’ method of paying Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA was willful and 

was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the FLSA. 

Defendants misclassified Plaintiff with the sole intent to avoid paying her in accordance to the 

FLSA; the fees and fines described herein constitute unlawful “kickbacks” to the employer 

within the meaning of the FLSA, and Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of such fines and fees. 

62. Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members who worked at The Landing Strip performed 

precisely the same job duties - dancing and entertaining at The Landing Strip.

63. Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members who worked at The Landing Strip during the 

applicable limitations period(s) were subject to the same work rules established by the 

Defendants as identified above.

64. Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members who worked at The Landing Strip during the 

applicable limitations period(s) were subject to the terms and conditions of employment and the 

same degree of control, direction, supervision, promotion and investment imposed or performed 

by Defendants.

65. Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members who worked at The Landing Strip during the 

applicable limitations period(s) were subject to the same across-the-board, uniformly applied 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 11 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 12 –

corporate policy mandated by Defendants.

66. Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members who worked at The Landing Strip during 

the applicable limitations period(s) were subject to the same fees and fines imposed by 

Defendants.

67. As a result of Defendants’ across-the-board, standard operating procedure of 

mischaracterizing dancers/entertainers as “independent contractors” and their consequent failure 

to pay any wages or compensation whatsoever, it is a certainly that numerous other current and 

former dancers and entertainers who worked at The Landing Strip during the applicable 

limitations period would elect to participate in this action if provided notice of same.

68. Upon information and belief, more than one hundred (100) dancers and 

entertainers have worked at The Landing Strip during the three (3) to five (5) years prior to the 

filing of this action.

69. Plaintiff is “similarly situated” to the 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) class of persons she 

seeks to represent and will adequately represent the interests of the class.

70. Plaintiff has hired Counsel experienced in class actions and in collective actions 

under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) who will adequately represent the class.

71. Defendants failed to keep records of tips, gratuities and/or service charges paid to 

Plaintiff or any other entertainer and failed to maintain and furnish wage statements to Plaintiff.

72. Federal law mandates that an employer is required to keep for three (3) years all 

payroll records and other records containing, among other things, the following information:

a. The time of day and day of week on which the employees’ work week begins;

b. The regular hourly rate of pay for any workweek in which overtime compensation 

is due under section 7(a) of the FLSA;

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 12 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 13 –

c. An explanation of the basis of pay by indicating the monetary amount paid on a 

per hour, per day, per week, or other basis;

d. The amount and nature of each payment which, pursuant to section 7(e) of the 

FLSA, is excluded from the “regular rate”;

e. The hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek;

f. The total daily or weekly straight time earnings or wages due for hours worked 

during the workday or workweek, exclusive of premium overtime compensation;

g. The total premium for overtime hours. This amount excludes the straight-time 

earnings for overtime hours recorded under this section;

h. The total additions to or deductions from wages paid each pay period including 

employee purchase orders or wage assignments;

i. The dates, amounts, and nature of the items which make up the total additions and 

deductions;

j. The total wages paid each pay period; and

k. The date of payment and the pay period covered by payment.

29 C.F.R. 516.2, 516.5.

73. Defendants have not complied with federal law and have failed to maintain such 

records with respect to Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members. Because Defendants’ records are 

inaccurate and/or inadequate, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members can meet their burden 

under the FLSA by proving that they, in fact, performed work for which they were improperly 

compensated, and produce sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of their work “as a 

matter of a just and reasonable inference.” See, e.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 

U.S. 680, 687 (1946). Plaintiff seeks to put Defendants on notice that she intends to rely on 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 13 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 14 –

Anderson to provide the extent of her unpaid work.

B. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY UNDER THE FLSA

74. In Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit held that individuals can be liable for FLSA violations under an expansive 

interpretation of “employer” for directors and officers. Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, 

Inc., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013). The FLSA defines “employer” as “any person acting 

directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d). The Fifth Circuit stated “[t]he dominant theme in the case law is that those who have 

operating control over employees within companies may be individually liable for FLSA 

violations committed by the companies.” Gray v. Powers, 673 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2012).

75. Where an individual exercises “control over the nature and structure of the 

employment relationship,” or “economic control” over the relationship, that individual is an 

employer within the meaning of the FLSA and is subject to liability. Lambert v. Ackerley 180 

F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999). Factors related to “economic control,” include ownership interest,

operational control of significant aspects of the day-to-day functions, the power to hire and fire 

employees, determine salaries, and the responsibility to maintain employment records. Gray, 

673 F.3d at 355 (citing Williams v. Henagan, 595 F.3d 610, 615 (5th Cir. 2010).

76. Theo Polakis is individually liable for failing to pay Plaintiff her wages. The 

actual identities of other managers and owners are unknown at this time. As stated before, 

Plaintiff will be amending to include individuals liable pursuant to Gray v. Powers, 673 F.3d 

352, 357 (5th Cir. 2012).

V. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

77. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 14 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 15 –

allegation set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

78. Plaintiff brings this action as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) on behalf of all persons who were or are employed by Defendants as exotic 

dancers/entertainers at any time during the three (3) years prior to the commencement of this 

action to present.

79. Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been denied 

overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours per workweek and have been denied pay at 

the federally mandated minimum wage rate. That is, Plaintiff worked with other 

dancers/entertainers at The Landing Strip. As such, she has firsthand personal knowledge of the 

same pay violations throughout Defendants’ club. Furthermore, other exotic dancers/entertainers

at Defendants’ club have shared with her similar pay violation experiences as those described in 

this Complaint.

80. Other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff work or have worked at The 

Landing Strip but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half (1 1⁄2) their regular rate 

when those hours exceeded forty (40) hours per workweek. Furthermore, these same employees 

were denied pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.

81. Although Defendants permitted and/or required the FLSA Class Members to 

work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have denied them full 

compensation for their hours worked over forty (40). Defendants have also denied them full 

compensation at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.

82. FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as 

the Plaintiff.

83. FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty (40) 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 15 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 16 –

hours during a workweek.

84. FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked and did not receive 

minimum wage.

85. FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime and/or pay at the 

federally mandated minimum wage rate under the FLSA.

86. As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of job duties, pay 

structure, misclassification as independent contractors and/or the denial of overtime and 

minimum wage.

87. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation and hours worked at the 

minimum wage rate required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices

and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the FLSA Class Members.

88. The experiences of the Plaintiff, with respect to her pay, are typical of the 

experiences of the FLSA Class Members.

89. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class Member 

does not prevent collective treatment.

90. All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are

entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) during a workweek.

91. All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are 

entitled to compensation for hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.

92. Although the exact number of damages may vary among FLSA Class Members, 

the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The 

claims of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on 

a systematic course of wrongful conduct by the Defendants that caused harm to all FLSA Class 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 16 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 17 –

Members.

93. As such, Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of the 

following class:

All of Defendants’ current and former exotic dancers/entertainers who 

worked at The Landing Strip located in Austin, Texas at any time 

starting three years before this Complaint was filed.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE PURSUANT TO FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Collective

Against All Defendants)

94. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every 

allegation set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

95. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for 

“commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.

96. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in commerce, and because its 

annual gross volume of sales made is more than five hundred thousand U.S. Dollars ($500,000).

97. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206.

98. Based upon the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and 

willfully violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiff the minimum wage under the FLSA.

99. Throughout the relevant period of this lawsuit, there is no evidence that 

Defendants’ conduct that gave rise to this action was in good faith and based on reasonable 

grounds. In fact, Defendants continued to violate the FLSA long after it learned that its 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 17 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 18 –

misclassification scheme and compensation policies were illegal.

100. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from 

Defendants, minimum wage compensation and an equal amount in the form of liquidated 

damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, including interest, 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES PURSUANT TO FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Collective

Against All Defendants)

101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation 

set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

102. Each Defendant is an “employer” or “joint employer” of Plaintiff within the 

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

103. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for 

“commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.

104. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in commerce, and because its 

annual gross volume of sales made is more than five hundred thousand U.S. Dollars 

($500,000.00).

105. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the applicable overtime wage for each hour in 

excess of forty (40) during each workweek in which she worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.

106. Based upon the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and 

willfully violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiff the overtime wage required under the FLSA.

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 18 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 19 –

107. Throughout the relevant period of this lawsuit, there is no evidence that 

Defendants’ conduct that gave rise to this action was in good faith and based on reasonable 

grounds. In fact, Defendants continued to violate the FLSA long after it learned that its 

misclassification scheme and compensation policies were unlawful.

108. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from 

Defendants, overtime wage compensation and an equal amount in the form of liquidated 

damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, including interest, 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL TAKING OF TIPS IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Collective

Against Defendants)

109. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation 

set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

110. Plaintiff customarily and regularly received more than thirty U.S. Dollars 

($30.00) a month in tips and therefore is a tipped employee as defined in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

203(t), see also 29 C.F.R. § 531.50. 

111. At all relevant times, Defendants were “employer(s)” or “joint employer(s)” of 

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

112. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for 

“commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.

113. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning for 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in commerce, and because 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 19 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 20 –

its annual gross volume of sales made is more than five hundred thousand U.S. Dollars 

($500,000).

114. Under TIPA:

[a]n employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any 

purpose including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any 

portion of employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not it takes a tip 

credit.

29 U.S.C. § 203.

115. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiff by Defendants’ customers in the 

form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to management, house moms, disc 

jockeys, and floor men in violation of TIPA.

116. Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in an illegal tip pool, which included 

employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, and do not have more than a de 

minimis, if any, interaction with customers leaving the tips (such as the Club DJ, security, and 

management). See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, “Fact Sheet # 15: Tipped 

employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).” 

117. The contribution Defendants required Plaintiff to make after each shift was 

arbitrary and capricious and distribution was not agreed to by Plaintiff or other dancers; rather, it 

was imposed upon Plaintiff and other dancers. 

118. By requiring Plaintiff to pool her tips with club management, including the 

individual Defendants named herein, Defendants “retained” a portion of the tips received by 

Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA. 

119. Defendants did not make any effort, let alone a “good faith” effort, to comply 

with the FLSA as it relates to compensation owed to Plaintiff. 

120. At the time of their illegal conduct, Defendants knew or showed reckless 

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 20 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 21 –

disregard that the tip-pool which they required Plaintiff to contribute included non-tipped 

employees and, therefore, was statutorily illegal. In spite of this, Defendants willfully failed and 

refused to pay Plaintiff the proper amount of the tips to which she was entitled. 

121. Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff the tips she earned violates 

the FLSA. 

122. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiff by Defendants’ customers in the 

form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to management, house moms, disc 

jockeys, and door men in violation of TIPA.

123. As a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as alleged herein, and 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) and 260, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of all 

misappropriated tips, plus interest; as liquated damages, an amount equal to all misappropriated 

tips, mandatory attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ILLEGAL KICKBACKS, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

124. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation 

set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

125. Defendants required Plaintiff to pay monetary fees to Defendants and other The 

Landing Strip employees who did not work in positions that are customarily and regularly 

tipped, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

126. Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff pay fees to Defendants and other The 

Landing Strip employees violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.

127. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 

531.35 as alleged above, they were not entitled to utilize the FLSA’s tip-credit provision with 

respect to Plaintiff’s wages.

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 21 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 22 –

128. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 

531.35, all monetary fees imposed on Plaintiff are classified as illegal kickbacks. 

129. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants all fees that Defendants required 

Plaintiff to pay in order to work at The Landing Strip, involving but not limited to house fees and 

tip sharing.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FORCED TIPPING & SUBSIDIZATION OF OWNERSHIP, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

130. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation 

set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

131. Defendants required Plaintiff to pay monetary fees to other The Landing Strip

employees who did not work in positions that are customarily and regularly tipped, in violation 

of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

132. Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff pay fees to other The Landing Strip

employees violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.

133. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 

531.35 as alleged above, they were not entitled to utilize the FLSA’s tip-credit provision with 

respect to Plaintiff’s wages.

134. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants all fees that Defendants required 

Plaintiff to pay other employees in order to work at The Landing Strip, involving but not limited 

to forced tip sharing.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests of this Court the following relief:

1. For compensatory damages according to proof at trial of at least $100,000;

2. For special damages according to proof at trial;

3. For restitution of unpaid monies;

4. For attorneys’ fees;

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 22 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 23 –

5. For costs of suit incurred herein;

6. For statutory penalties;

7. For civil penalties;

8. For pre-judgment interest;

9. For post-judgement interest; 

10. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

11. For declaratory relief;

12. For injunctive relief; and

13. For such other and further relief as the tribunal may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 23, 2020 /s/ Jarrett L. Ellzey 

Jarrett L. Ellzey

Texas Bar No. 24040864

W. Craft Hughes

Texas Bar No. 24046123

Leigh Montgomery

Texas Bar No. 24052214

HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP

1105 Milford Street

Houston, Texas 77066

Telephone: (713) 554-2377

Fax: (888) 995-3335

jarrett@hughesellzey.com

craft@hughesellzey.com

leigh@hughesellzey.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 23 of 24
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

– 24 –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all such triable claims.

Dated: March 23, 2020 /s/ Jarrett L. Ellzey 

Jarrett L. Ellzey

Texas Bar No. 24040864

W. Craft Hughes

Texas Bar No. 24046123

Leigh Montgomery

Texas Bar No. 24052214

HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP

1105 Milford Street

Houston, Texas 77066

Telephone: (713) 554-2377

Fax: (888) 995-3335

jarrett@hughesellzey.com

craft@hughesellzey.com

leigh@hughesellzey.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-00309-RP Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 24 of 24