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

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

Daniel S. Brome, CA SBN 278915

dbrome@nka.com

NICHOLS KASTER, LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 277-7235

Facsimile: (415) 277-7238

Rachhana T. Srey, MN Bar No. 340133

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

4600 IDS Center

80 South 8th St.

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: (612) 256-3200

Facsimile: (612) 215-6870

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Others Similarly Situated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Scepkowski, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

Nova Measuring Instruments Inc.,

 Defendants.

Case No. ____________

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION

(1) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 

in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.)
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

Plaintiff William Scepkowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by 

and through his attorneys, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, bring this action against Nova Measuring 

Instruments Inc. (“Defendant”) for damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction to hear this Complaint and to adjudicate the 

claims stated herein under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action being brought under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201 et seq.

2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant operates in this district and because a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. 

PARTIES

3. Defendant Nova Measuring Instruments Inc. (“Nova”) is the U.S. subsidiary of 

Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. 

4. Nova is a Delaware corporation with a princial place of business located at 2055 

Gateway Place, Suite 470, San Jose, California 95118. 

5. Defendant develops, manufactures and distributes metrology systems for process 

control that are integrated into process equipment tools, or used as stand-alone metrology 

platforms for the global semiconductor manufacturing industry. 

6. Nova operates in interstate commerce by, among other things, manufacturing and 

distributing its products to customers in multiple states across the country. 

7. Upon information and belief, Nova’s gross annual sales made or business done has 

been in excess of $500,000 at all relevant times. 

8. Plaintiff William Scepkowski is an adult resident of Mechanicville, New York. 

9. Scepkowski is currently employed by Nova as a field service engineer, and has 

been employed by the company since May 2015. 

10. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated 
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals were, 

or are, employed by Nova as field service engineers, metrology support engineers, or other job 

titles/positions performing similar job duties (together “FSEs”) within the three years of the date 

this Complaint was filed. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

11. At all relevevant times, Nova is, and has been, Plaintiff’s and the similarly situated 

individuals’ “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. As FSEs, Plaintiff’s and the similarly situated individuals’ primary job duties and 

responsibilities consist or consisted of non-exempt work: installing, repairing, replacing parts, 

troubleshooting, servicing and performing preventative maintenance on equipment manufactured 

by Nova.

13. Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals to 

work more than forty (40) hours per week without overtime pay. 

14. Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals were or are paid a salary with no 

overtime pay. 

15. Defendant classified Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals as exempt from 

overtime compensation. 

16. Defendant did not keep accurate records of all of the hours worked by Plaintiff and 

the similarly situated individuals. 

17. Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiffs and the similarly 

situated individuals performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime 

compensation. 

18. Plaintiff complained to Nova’s Human Resources in or around November 2016 

about working unpaid overtime hours and being paid misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. 

19. Upon information and belief, other FSEs have complained in group meetings 

about working unpaid overtime. 
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, restates and 

incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

21. Plaintiff files this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals. 

The proposed FLSA Collective class is defined as follows: 

All persons who worked as field service engineers, metrology support engineers, 

or other job positions/titles performing similar duties for Nova Measuring 

Instruments Inc. at any time since three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

22. Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a part of this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). Plaintiff’s signed consent forms are attached as Exhibit A. As this case proceeds, it is 

likely that other individuals will file consent forms and join as “opt-in” plaintiffs.

23. During the applicable statutory period, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective routinely 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation for 

their overtime hours worked. 

24. For example, during the workweek ending January 22, 2017, Plaintiff Scepkowski 

estimates that he worked approximately seventy (70) hours without receiving overtime 

compensation for his thirty (30) overtime hours. 

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to maintain accurate record of the 

hours Plaintiff’s and the members of the FLSA Collective worked, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 

516.2. 

26. Defendant willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq., as described in this Complaint in ways including, but not limited to, failing to pay its FSEs 

overtime compensation. 

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

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

numerous members of the FLSA Collective who have suffered from the Defendant’s practice of 

denying overtime pay to FSEs who would benefit from the issuance of court-authorized notice of 
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

this lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those similarly situated employees are known to 

Defendant, and are readily identifiable through its records. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

(on behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective)

28. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, restates and 

incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

29. The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one 

and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per 

workweek. 

30. Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to routinely 

work more than forty (40) hours per week without overtime compensation. 

31. Defendant’s actions, policies, and practices described above violate the FLSA’s 

overtime requirement by regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA 

Collective the required overtime compensation. 

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

these individuals overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. 

33. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and 

the FLSA Collective have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income and other 

damages. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective are entitled to liquidated damages and attorney’s fees 

and costs incurred in connection with this claim. 

34. By failing to accurately record, report, and/or preserve records of hours worked by 

Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, Defendant has failed to make, keep, and preserve records with 

respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions 

and practice of employment, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

35. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for the 

fact that its compensation practices were in violation of these laws.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, pray for 

judgment against Defendant as follows:

A. Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated, and prompt issuance of notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all those similarly situated 

apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them 

to assert timely FLSA claims in this action by filing individual 

consent forms;

B. Judgment that Plaintiff and those similarly situated are non-exempt 

employees entitled to protection under the FLSA;

C. Judgment against Defendant for violation of the overtime 

provisions of the FLSA;

D. Judgment that Defendant’s violations of the FLSA were willful;

E. An award to Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated for the amount 

of unpaid wages owed and liquidated damages;

F. An award of prejudgment interest (to the extent liquidated damages 

are not awarded);

G. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

H. 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

I. For such other and further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may 

deem appropriate and just.
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-

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

Dated: February 20, 2017 NICHOLS KASTER, LLP

By: s/Daniel S. Brome

Daniel S. Brome

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Others Similarly 

Situated