UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Talon Overland, individually )

and on behalf of all others ) Civil Action No. 

similarly situated, )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Talon Overland, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated 

installation technicians, states as follows for his Complaint against Defendant Synergies 3 Tec 

Services, LLC (“Synergies3” or “Defendant”):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a collective action brought by Plaintiff Talon Overland (“Plaintiff”), on

behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked 

for Synergies3 as installation technicians, and were denied proper compensation as required by 

federal wage and hour laws. 

2. Plaintiff filed a consent to be an opt-in plaintiff in a collective action styled

Jackson et al. v. Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, 4:19-cv-00178 (ED Mo.), which was filed on 

February 4, 2019. Plaintiff, along with other installation technicians, returned his consent after 

the Jackson court’s December 30, 2019 deadline to join had passed. The Jackson court recently 

confirmed that all individuals who returned untimely consents are excluded from that case.

5:20-cv-00447

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 8
2

3. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Pursuant to the § 216(b) of the FLSA, Plaintiff 

bring this claim as a putative collective action on behalf of the FLSA Collective defined below. 

4. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated installation 

technicians as “independent contractors” and failed to pay them one and on-half (1.5) times their 

regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Talon Overland resides in Randall County, Texas. He worked for

Defendant as an installation technician from approximately September 2018 to October 2019. 

Plaintiff worked for Defendant out of its Lubbock, Texas office. 

6. Synergies3 is a Texas limited liability company, registered to conduct business in 

Texas and other states across the country. 

7. Synergies3 is a satellite installation provider for AT&T (DirecTV). It provides 

satellite installation services to AT&T customers across the United States. 

8. Synergies3 is or has been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production 

of goods or services for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), and, upon 

information and belief, has had an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not 

less than $500,000 at all relevant times.

9. Defendant has a practice of unlawfully and improperly classifying its installation 

technicians, including Plaintiff and those similarly situated, as “independent contractors.”

10. Defendant maintained a practice of paying its installation technicians, including 

Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, by piece rate and not paying them proper overtime 

compensation. Plaintiff, and other installation technicians, were under Defendant’s direction and 

control and were all subject to the same unlawful pay practice. 

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 8
3

JURISDICTION & VENUE

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331, because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the FLSA. 

12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because it is where 

Synergies3 resides.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective worked for Defendant as installation 

technicians.

14. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were paid on a piece-rate or per job basis.

15. Defendant’s piece-rate or per job compensation plan did not properly pay Plaintiff 

and the similarly situated installation technicians overtime pay for the overtime hours they 

worked.

16. Defendant unlawfully classified Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective as 

“independent contractors” to avoid its obligations to pay overtime wages under federal law. 

Defendant also utilized its “independent contractor” misclassification scheme to improperly reap 

other benefits, including reducing its tax liability, avoiding workers’ compensation, and passing 

operating costs on to its workforce. 

17. Despite classifying Plaintiff and those similarly situated as “independent 

contractors,” Defendant’s installation technicians were and are, in fact, employees under federal 

law.

18. At all relevevant times, Defendant is, and has been, an “employer” of Plaintiff and 

those similarly situated within the meaning of the federal law. 

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 8
4

19. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective worked for Defendant on a full-time and 

continuing basis. Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not sell or advertise their services to 

the general public, or work for any other company other than Defendant. 

20. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were also subject to Defendant’s direction 

and control regarding the manner in which they performed their work. For instance:

a. Defendant required its installation technicians to follow Defendant’s instructions, 

processes, and policies regarding the methods by which their work was to be 

completed. 

b. Defendant supervised Plaintiff and the similarly situated installation technicians’

work.

c. Defendant required Plaintiff and the similarly situated installation technicians to 

use specific applications on their personal mobile phones and/or tablets to open 

and close work orders, and to track the work they completed each day. 

d. Defendant determined and set Plaintiff and the similarly situated installation 

technicians’ schedules.

e. Defendant’s installation technicians did not generate their own business. Rather, 

the customers for whom they provided installation services for, were contracted 

through Defendant and/or Defendant’s customers. 

f. Defendant determined Plaintiff and the similarly situated installation technicians’

pay by setting the non-negotiable rates included in its piece-rate compensation 

structure. 

g. Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated installation technicians to 

attend meetings to discuss job performance and details and specifications related 

to the work to be completed for Defendant’s customers. 

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 8
5

h. Defendant required installation technicians to obtain specific certifications in 

order to perform work for Defendant. 

i. Defendant required installation technicians to communicate any changes in their 

work schedule and/or hours to Defendant, in advance of the changes. 

j. Defendant had the ability to discipline its installation technicians if they did not 

follow Defendant’s standards, policies and / or procedures. 

21. Defendant has suffered and permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than forty 

(40) hours a week without overtime compensation. 

22. For example, during the workweek ending February 9, 2019, Plaintiff Overland

estimates that he worked approximately 55 hours without receiving any overtime pay. 

23. Defendant has also suffered and permitted other similarly situated installation 

technicians to regularly work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without overtime 

compensation.

24. Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law, maintained an 

illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective proper overtime compensation 

for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.

25. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Defendant about its improper classification of 

installation technicians as “independent contractors” and insisted that he was owed overtime for 

hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek. Defendant has also been sued on at least 

two different occasions for misclassifying the installation technician position. See Jones v. 

Synergies3 TEC Servs., LLC, 4:18-cv-01161(E.D. Mo.); Jackson v. Synergies3 TEC Servs., LLC, 

4:19-cv-00178 (E.D. Mo.). 

26. Defendant did not keep accurate or complete records of the hours Plaintiff and 

other similarly situated installation technicians worked. 

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 8
6

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff’s consent form is attached as 

Exhibit A. The consent form of opt-in Plaintiffs are attached as Exhibit B. As this case 

proceeds, it is likely other individuals will join this case as opt-in Plaintiffs. 

28. Pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seek to certify the following 

FLSA Collective:

All installation technicians who worked for Defendant and were 

classified as “independent contractors” at any time on or after October

30, 2019 (the “FLSA Collective”) to the date of final judgment.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew that Plaintiff and the FLSA 

Collective performed work that required overtime pay. Defendant operated under a scheme to 

deprive these workers of overtime compensation by misclassifying them as independent 

contractors and failing to properly compensate them for their overtime hours worked.

30. Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff

and the FLSA Collective, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective. There are 

numerous similarly situated current and former installation technicians who have been denied 

overtime pay by Defendant in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of 

court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those similarly situated 

installation technicians are known to Defendant and should be readily identifiable through 

Defendant’s records.

CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I – OVERTIME WAGES

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective

31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 8
7

32. The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime 

compensation at a rate of one and one-half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay for all hours 

worked over forty (40) in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207.

33. Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective were or are employees of Defendant 

within the meaning of the FLSA.

34. Defendant is or was the employer of Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective 

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

35. As a result of its unlawful classification of Plaintiff and FLSA Collective as 

“independent contractors,” and its failure to pay them the overtime compensation required by 

law, Defendant has violated the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 215(a)(2).

36. Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and those similarly situated to 

routinely work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without proper overtime compensation 

as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and its implementing regulations.

37. Defendant’s failure to comply with the FLSA overtime protections caused 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.

38. Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact, that it failed to pay 

these individuals proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.

39. Defendant has not acted in good faith or with reasonable grounds to believe that 

their actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiff

and other similarly situated workers are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an 

amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages and overtime compensation permitted by 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find that Plaintiff and the other installation technicians

are not entitled to recover liquidated damages, then they are entitled to an award of prejudgment 

interest at the applicable legal rate.

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 8
8

40. Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to unpaid overtime, liquidated 

damages, and attorney’s fees and costs under the FLSA.

41. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective, seek recovery of 

attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by Defendant, as provided by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

WHEREFORE, on Count I of this Complaint, Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

installation technicians demand judgment against Defendant and pray for (1) compensatory 

damages; (2) liquidated damages; (3) attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 261(b); (4) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; (5) leave to add 

additional plaintiffs and/or state law claims by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or any 

other method approved by the Court; and (6) such other relief as the Court deem fair and 

equitable.

Dated: April 8, 2020

Respectfully Submitted:

s/ Rachhana T. Srey

Rachhana T. Srey, MN Bar No. 340133*

srey@nka.com

Jay Eidsness, MN Bar No. 0395347

jeidness@nka.com

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Telephone: (612) 256-3200

Facsimile: (612) 215-6870

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND 

THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED

Case 5:20-cv-00447-FB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 8