PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JEFFREY RENFROE

Plaintiff,

v.

CGT U.S. LIMITED

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 5-20-CV-00559-FB

Jury Requested

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jeffrey Renfroe (“Plaintiff” herein) brings this lawsuit, asserting claims under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), against Defendant CGT U.S. LIMITED and in support 

thereof shows as follows:

I. NATURE OF SUIT

1. The FLSA was passed by Congress in 1938 in an attempt to eliminate low wages and long 

hours and to correct conditions that were detrimental to the health and well-being of workers. To 

achieve its humanitarian goals, the FLSA “limits to 40 a week the number of hours that an 

employer may employ any of his employees subject to the Act, unless the employee receives 

compensation for his employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less that one and one-half 

times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37, 40 

(1944) (discussing the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)).

2. Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff for all hours and overtime hours

worked. Plaintiff was not compensated at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay 

when he worked over 40 hours per week, as required by law.

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 2

3. In addition, Plaintiff asserts Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended (Title VII), and 42 U.S.C section 1981 (1981) in discriminating against Plaintiff 

Renfroe because of his race and national origin (black) and later suffered retaliation based on his 

opposition to and complaints regarding race discrimination.

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Jeffrey Renfroe is an individual who was and is still employed by Defendant within 

the meaning of the FLSA. He hereby consents to be a party in this action.

5. Defendant CGT U.S. LIMITED (“CGT” or “Defendant”) is a Texas domestic corporation

doing business in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas and has filed a waiver of service in this 

matter on June 4, 2020. The Defendant’s answer is due on July 6, 2020 (Dkt ).

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiff has asserted claim arising under 

federal law, including under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

Plaintiff further asserts violations of 1981..

7. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because the events forming the basis of the 

suit occurred in this District. 

IV. COVERAGE

8. At all material times, Defendant has acted directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer

or joint employer with respect to Plaintiff.

9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an employer within the meaning of 

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

10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an enterprise within the meaning of 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 3

11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an enterprise engaged in commerce 

or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 

29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that said enterprise has had employees engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on 

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

said enterprise has had and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not 

less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated). 

CGT produces coated fabrics and films for automotive and industrial applications and operates a 

manufacturing facility in New Braunfels, Texas, where Plaintiff Renfroe is employed.

12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was an individual employee who was engaged in 

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

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant CGT produces coated fabrics and films for automotive and industrial applications 

and operates a manufacturing facility in New Braunfels, Texas. It is believed Defendant does 

more than $500,000.00 per year in gross revenues. 

14. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Process Engineer and was regularly scheduled to 

work 40 or more hours in a work week for Defendant. Mr. Renfroe presently works for 

Defendant as a Process Engineer. He started working for Defendant in November 2017 at a rate 

of $67,000.00 annually and was later raised to $68,200.00 in June 2019. He and other similar 

employees did not punch in and out, although he did log into a computer and scanned in and out 

of his building. He also used a company issued phone that would potentially reflect hours that he 

worked and times and days he would have responded for company business. Mr. Renfroe 

generally kept a log of hours.

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 4

15. As a Process Engineer, according to Defendant, Renfroe’s duties purportedly included “the 

design, operation, control, and optimization of chemical, physical, and biological processes with 

a focus on economy, safety, reliability, quality, and sustainability. Renfroe, as well as other 

members of his process engineering team, was assigned to a specific manufacturing area within 

the facility and handles projects that are assigned accordingly. Renfroe’s process engineering 

team currently includes three other employees: Gilbert Guerra, hired in January 2017, Ruben 

Lujan, hired in February 2017, and Dakota Pebworth, hired in May 2018. Renfroe and the three 

other individuals in his position report to Process Engineering Manager, Juan Elias, who in turn 

reports to the Director of Operations, Jim Powell.

16. Mr. Renfroe and other Process Engineers could not hire and fire and their job duties 

included operation and control which included duties of performing manual labor related to their 

positions. They were generally required to work from at least 8am to 530 pm. Mr Renfroe 

generally worked from 8am to 6pm, through lunch and sometimes after hours and on weekends. 

Based on the schedule alone, he generally worked at least ten hours daily and worked in excess 

of 40 hours a week. He is owed on average 10 hours of overtime per week.

17. However, Plaintiff Renfroe was not properly paid for all the time and overtime hours that he 

worked. Rather, he was generally paid a salary rate. Mr. Renfroe was not paid proper overtime 

for at least 10 hours per week at a rate of time and a half for each overtime hour worked. Based 

on annual pay of approximately $68, 200 at present, and an estimated hourly rate of at least

$32.78, he would be entitled to an average overtime rate of $49.00 hourly and recovery of 

approximately $490.00 per week in unpaid overtime, an estimate of $25,480.00 in unpaid 

overtime per year. It is contended that the FWW formula does not apply in this instance as there 

was no demonstrable mutual agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant that Plaintiff would be 

paid a fixed weekly salary regardless of the number of hours worked.

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 5

18. It is contended that Plaintiff Renfroe and other similar employees in his position were misclassified and that he should have been paid an hourly rate pursuant to the FLSA and Department 

of Labor guidance. Process Engineers should be non-exempt production employees because their 

work involves “the day-to-day carrying out of the employer’s business” and thus falls “squarely 

on the production side.” They were simply cogs in an assembly line as referenced in applicable 

caselaw.

19. Under the FLSA, Mr. Renfroe would be entitled to recovery of an estimated $25,480.00 in 

unpaid overtime per year and a like amount of $25,480.00 in liquidated damages for each 

respective year. He would be entitled to recovery of at least two years of unpaid overtime and 

liquidated damages and three years of recovery if the court finds that the conduct is willful. 

Estimating a recovery for two and a half years of unpaid overtime from his start in 2017 to the 

present, Mr. Renfroe would be entitled to recovery of an estimated $63,700.00 in unpaid 

overtime and $63,700.00 in liquidated damages.

20. It is contended Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their

illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff.

21. In addition to the above facts related to the violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

Plaintiff asserts he was subjected to discrimination, harassment and, later, retaliation and 

harassment after his opposition to and reports of discrimination. He had worked for Defendant 

for almost two years. While employed, he was subjected to racial comments by a 

Production Operator (Katy Stillwell). As a result, he complained to HR regarding her 

comments and she was terminated. Since he opposed the discrimination and reported it to 

HR, he continued to be subjected to a hostile work environment.

22. For example, several random coworkers use the word "nigga" on a daily basis in his 

presence and the discrimination, harassment and hostile environment have not ceased. He 

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 6

believes that his workload has increased by an estimated 45%, even though other workers in 

his position who are hispanic have not had their workloads increased. Plaintiff asserts 

Defendant is purposefully attempting to set him up to fail.

23. He has been put on projects that he was not trained to do and was given an Italian -

English manual to complete one project. Even after Plaintiff spoke with the Italians to help 

him complete the project correctly, because they didn't speak English, it was very difficult 

and time consuming.

24. He has been placed in other areas that he was not familiar with and has been unfairly 

blamed when there is a failure on a project. He also was paced on a performance review 

which was disciplinary because he had not completed projects.

25. Plaintiff asserts all of these actions are in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity 

by complaining about discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights act of 1964, as amended.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND RETALIATION

26. During the relevant period, Defendant has violated and is violating the provisions of Sections 

6 and 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-7, and 215(a)(2), by employing employees in an 

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

of the FLSA as aforesaid, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such 

employees for their work in excess of forty hours per week at rates no less than one-and-a-half 

times the regular rates for which they were employed. Defendant has acted willfully in failing to 

pay Plaintiff in accordance with the law.

27. Plaintiff further seeks mandatory attorneys’ fees as provided under the FLSA. See Hilton v. 

Executive Self Storage Assocs., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51417, *27 (W.D. Tex. June 18, 

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 7

2009) (“Fee awards are mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs in FLSA cases.”) (29 U.S.C. section 

216 (b)).

28. Plaintiff further asserts he is suffering retaliation in violation of section 215(a)(3)6 (b) after 

complaining about the violations of the FLSA.

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: TITLE VII AND 1981 AND RETALIATION

29. Plaintiff further asserts that he has suffered discrimination, harassment and retaliation under 

either/or Title VII or 1981, in violation of the law. Plaintiff asserts that discrimination was 

intentional under 1981.

30. As a result, Plaintiff seeks damages including lost wages, past and future, mental anguish 

and emotional distress, past and future, and attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed under the 

statutes.

31. For purposes of the Title VII claim, Plaintiff timely and properly filed his claim with the 

EEOC and his Right to Sue letter was issued on March 13, 2020, by the EEOC. As a result, this 

claim is timely filed.

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT

32. WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, Plaintiff prays for a trial by jury and judgment

against Defendant as follows:

a. For an Order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA finding Defendant liable for 

unpaid back wages due to Plaintiff and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid 

compensation found due to Plaintiff; and

b. For an Order awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action;

c. For an Order awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees as provided under 29 U.S.C. 

section 216 (b); 

d. For an order and judgment for lost wages, past and future;

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 8

e. For an order and judgment for mental anguish and emotional distress, past and 

future;

f. For and order and judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs under Title VII and/or 

1981;

d. For and Order awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the 

highest rates allowed by law; and

e. For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and 

appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted, 

_/s/ Adam Poncio ____________

ADAM PONCIO

State Bar No. 16109800

Aponcio@ponciolaw.com

ALAN BRAUN

State Bar No. 2405488

abraun@ponciolaw.com

PONCIO LAW OFFICES

A Professional Corporation

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109

San Antonio, Texas 78229-3550

Telephone:(210) 212-7979

Facsimile:(210) 212-5880

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 9
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page - 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of June , 2020, I conferred with opposing counsel

and electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court and served on the following 

interested parties:

Christine Reinhard 

Schmoyer Reinhard, LLC

8000 IH 10 West, Suite 1600

San Antonio, Texas 78230

210-447-8033

creinhard@sr-llp.com

 /s/ Adam Poncio 

ADAM PONCIO

Case 5:20-cv-00559-FB Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 9