1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

DANIEL BONNETT (AZ # 014127) 

MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 

1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Telephone: (602) 240-6900 

dbonnett@martinbonnett.com

RICHARD J. (REX) BURCH (TX # 24001807)* 

JAMES A. JONES (TX 10908300)* 

BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 

8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 

Houston, Texas 77046 

Telephone: (713) 877-8788 

rburch@brucknerburch.com jjones@brucknerburch.com 

SHANON J. CARSON (PA # 85957)* 

SARAH R. SCHALMAN-BERGEN (PA # 206211)* 

ALEXANDRA K. PIAZZA (PA # 315240)* 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

1622 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

Telephone: (215) 875-3000 

scarson@bm.net

sschalman-bergen@mb.net

apiazza@bm.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

*Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission to be Filed 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

RICHARD STAPLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GULF INTERSTATE FIELD 

SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: COMPLAINT 

SUMMARY

1. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. (Gulf Interstate) does not pay its Pipeline 

Inspectors overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

201, et seq. (FLSA). 

2. Plaintiff Richard Stapleman worked for Gulf Interstate as a Pipeline 

Inspector and was paid a day rate for all days worked. 

3. Although Stapleman regularly worked 60 (or more) hours a week, he did not 

receive any overtime pay as required by 29 C.F.R. § 778.112. 

4. Thus, this action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed 

to Stapleman. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

6. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

7. Stapleman was employed by Gulf Interstate in this District and Division 

(Gila County) and a substantial portion of the work that is the subject matter of this 

Complaint was performed in this District and Division. 

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Richard Stapleman is an Arizona resident who was employed by 

Gulf Interstate as a Pipeline Inspector and paid according to Gulf Interstate’s day rate pay 

plan. 

9. From October 2013 through December 2013, Stapleman was employed by 

Gulf Interstate as a Utility Inspector in Arizona on a pipeline construction project for 

Kinder Morgan. 

10. From March 2015 through April 2015, Stapleman was employed by Gulf 

Interstate as a Chief Inspector in New Mexico on a pipeline construction project for 

Kinder Morgan. 

11. From April 2015 through May 2015 Stapleman was employed by Gulf 

Interstate as a Chief Inspector in Texas on a pipeline construction project for Kinder 

Morgan. 

12. From May 2015 through June 2015 Stapleman was employed by Gulf 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

Interstate as a Chief Inspector in Arizona on a pipeline construction project for Kinder 

Morgan. 

13. Defendant Gulf Interstate is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf Interstate 

Engineering Company (GIEC).1

 Gulf Interstate is part of an enterprise with GIEC. 

14. The GIEC Enterprise provides a broad range of services to the oil and gas 

industry. 

15. The GIEC Enterprise employs thousands of workers in many states and 

countries. 

16. Its gross revenues have exceeded $100 million for each of the past three 

years. 

17. Gulf Interstate was incorporated in Delaware, and maintains its corporate 

headquarters in Houston, Texas. 

18. Gulf Interstate provides inspection services to the oil & gas industry. 

19. It provides construction management, construction inspection, vendor 

inspection, environmental inspection, materials management, and other services for oil 

and gas transportation and storage projects throughout the United States. 

20. Gulf Interstate employs Pipeline Inspectors (such as Plaintiff) who perform 

inspection services on oil and gas pipelines for energy, public utility and pipeline 

companies. 

21. Gulf Interstate’s financial results are driven largely by the number of 

Pipeline Inspectors performing services for Gulf Interstate’s customers and the fees that 

Gulf Interstate charges the customers for these services. 

22. Gulf Interstate charges its Pipeline Inspectors’ services out to Gulf 

Interstate’s customers on a per project basis, including a daily rate, per diem charges, 

mileage and other reimbursement items. 

23. Gulf Interstate employs individuals engaged in commerce or in the 

 

1 See Gulf Interstate Corporate Organization, available at http://www.gie.com/about-us/corporateorganization (last visited April 12, 2017) (stating Gulf Interstate Field Services is a “wholly owned 

subsidiary providing construction management and construction inspection services”).

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

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

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced in commerce by any person, as 

required by the FLSA. 

24. Gulf Interstate’s annual gross volume of business exceeds $500,000. 

25. Gulf Interstate is not an independently owned and controlled local enterprise 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 207(b)(3). 

FACTS 

26. Plaintiff was employed as a Pipeline Inspector by Gulf Interstate, 

performing and reviewing inspections on gas pipelines. 

27. Gulf Interstate employed Plaintiff to perform inspection duties on behalf of 

its customer, Kindle Morgan. 

28. Plaintiff performed routine inspections of newly-laid pipes. 

29. Plaintiff is a blue collar worker who is primarily engaged in manual labor or 

basic office duties. 

30. Plaintiff’s work as a Pipeline Inspector required the utilization of techniques 

and procedures obtained primarily from industry manuals, standards and codes. See 29 

C.F.R. § 541.203(g). 

31. The primary duty of Plaintiff as a Pipeline Inspector was to observe the 

construction of the pipeline, compare the work being performed to insure that it follows 

the plans and specifications set out by the pipeline owner and construction contractor, 

conduct non-destructive testing when necessary to insure compliance, to point out any 

variances between the work performed and the plans and specifications to the work crew 

and their foreman in the first instance, to note the progress of the construction project to 

report to the pipeline owner and construction contractor, and to report any variances in the 

work being performed and the plans and specifications to the pipeline owner and/or the 

construction contractor. 

32. Plaintiff worked within closely prescribed limits provided by Gulf Interstate, 

the pipeline construction contractor, the pipeline owner, the American Petroleum Institute, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Welding Society, and the 

United States Department of Transportation. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(g). 

33. Pipeline Inspectors do not prepare the plans and specifications for the 

pipelines they inspect. 

34. Pipeline Inspectors do not have the authority to change or authorize changes 

to the plans and specifications provided by the pipeline owner and construction contractor. 

35. Pipeline Inspectors do not have the authority to direct the work of the 

crew(s) whose work they are inspecting. 

36. The employment arrangements between Gulf Interstate and Plaintiff prior to 

Spring/Summer 2014 do not include any mention whatsoever of a minimum guarantee of 

a certain amount of pay which is to be paid regardless of the number of hours or days 

worked. 

37. In the Spring/Summer of 2014, following a January 2014 meeting with 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Gulf Interstate began to amend its contracts with its customers and to 

send out “correction” letters to its Pipeline Inspectors purporting to establish a minimum 

guarantee of a certain number of days pay to be paid regardless of the number of hours or 

days worked. 

38. However, each of the post-Spring/Summer 2014 Correction Letters contains 

the following language: 

39. Thus, Gulf Interstate placed an additional condition on Pipeline Inspectors 

receiving their Day Rate that they had to be present at the job site and ready and willing to 

work. 

40. Such a condition is entirely consistent with a Day Rate, but entirely 

inconsistent with a salary basis. 

41. Gulf Interstate pays its Pipeline Inspectors a day rate for the work they 

perform. 

42. While Gulf Interstate does not keep accurate records of the hours Pipeline 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

Inspectors work (Gulf Interstate instructs its Pipeline Inspectors to record only 10 hours 

per day on their timesheets regardless of whether the Pipeline Inspector worked more than 

10 hours that day), Gulf Interstate knows its Pipeline Inspectors regularly work more than 

40 hours in a week. 

43. In fact, the timesheets submitted to Gulf Interstate regularly indicate 60 or 

more hours worked in a week. 

44. Nonetheless, Gulf Interstate did not, and does not, pay its Pipeline 

Inspectors overtime compensation for hours worked over forty per workweek. 

45. Because its day rate system does not pay non-exempt workers overtime for 

hours worked in excess of forty in a week, Gulf Interstate’s day rate system violates the 

FLSA. 

46. Gulf Interstate is aware its payment plan is illegal. 

47. Gulf Interstate knows of the FLSA’s requirements because it pays overtime 

to a number of its employees. 

48. In addition, Gulf Interstate has received a number of complaints regarding 

its overtime pay practices with respect to Pipeline Inspectors. 

49. Gulf Interstate nonetheless recklessly disregarded its overtime obligations. 

50. In 2011, prior to the start of the relevant time period in this case, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a similar compensation scheme by 

an oilfield services company was not only unlawful, but constituted a willful violation of 

the FLSA. See Mumby v. Pure Energy Services (USA), Inc., 636 F.3d 1266, 1268 (10th 

Cir. 2011). 

51. Since Mumby, many oil and gas service companies reclassified their daily 

rate workers to come into compliance with the FLSA. Gulf Interstate, however, did not 

do so. 

52. Stapleman was a pre-notice opt-in in a case filed as a collective and class 

action in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Sloane, et al. v. Gulf Interstate Field 

Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01208 (W.D. Pa.), venue transferred, 4:16-cvCase: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

01571 (M.D. Pa.). 

53. Stapleman filed his consent to sue in the Sloane matter on November 27, 

2015. 

54. On March 24, 2017, the Sloane court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Collective and Class Certification and dismissed the claims of opt-in Stapleman – stating 

specifically he was “dismissed with prejudice.” Sloane, et al. v. Gulf Interstate Field 

Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:16-cv- 01571, ECF No. 192. at p. 4 (M.D. Pa. March 24, 

2017). 

55. Plaintiff requested the Sloane court amend or clarify its order, as the denial 

of conditional certification does not permit a dismissal with prejudice. Lusardi v. Lechner, 

855 F.2d 1062, 1079 (3d Cir. 1988) (“[a] district court has no power or jurisdiction to rule 

on the merits of the claims of individual members of a putative opt-in class when it denies 

class certification. This is clear legal error.”). 

56. On April 13, 2017, the Sloane court responded that, despite the language in 

its Order, it did not purport to dismiss Stapleman’s claims with prejudice. Sloane, et al. v. 

Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:16-cv- 01571, ECF No. 197. at p. 2 

(M.D. Pa. April 13, 2017). 

57. This case followed. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF THE FLSA 

58. All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 

59. The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for all hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 

1⁄2) times the regular rate at which he is employed. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

60. The FLSA provides that, if an employee is paid a flat sum for a day’s work 

or for doing a particular job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for 

services, the employee is entitled to extra half-time pay at his regular rate for all hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) in the workweek. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.112. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

61. Gulf Interstate’s compensation scheme applicable to Plaintiff failed to 

comply with either 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) or 29 C.F.R. § 778.112. 

62. Plaintiff is not exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

63. Gulf Interstate acted knowingly and/or with reckless disregard of the rights 

of Plaintiff in failing to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half (1-1⁄2) times his 

regular hourly wage for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, in violation 

of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

64. During all relevant times, Plaintiff was a covered employee entitled to the 

above-described FLSA protections. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: 

A. Back pay damages and prejudgment interest to the fullest extent 

permitted under the law; 

B. Liquidated damages to the fullest extent permitted under the law; 

C. Litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees to the fullest extent 

permitted under the law; and 

D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of April, 2017. 

 MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 

 By: s/Daniel L. Bonnett 

 Daniel L. Bonnett 

 Susan Martin 

 Jennifer L. Kroll 

 Evan Schlack 

 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 

 Phoenix, AZ 85004 

 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 

 -andRichard J. (Rex) Burch 

James A. Jones 

BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 

8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 

Houston, TX 77046 

Telephone: (713) 877-8788 

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

 -andShanon J. Carson 

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen 

Alexandra K. Piazza 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

1622 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 875-3000 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 2:18-cv-00567-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/28/17 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 9