IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Hammond, Indiana

VINCENT LE BRON,

On behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action no.: 2:14-cv-209

NILES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC,

WILLIAM LANGFORD, indiv.,

and CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI, indiv.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT

The plaintiff, Vincent Le Bron ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, 

by and through counsel, hereby sets forth this representative action for violation of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants, NILES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC,

WILLIAM LANGFORD, and CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI, (collectively, "Defendants"), for unpaid overtime 

compensation and related penalties and damages. Defendants' practice and policy is to willfully fail and 

refuse to properly pay overtime compensation due Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees. 

Doing so denies such individuals overtime pay and is a direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (hereinafter, "FLSA"). 

2. Defendants' practices are in direct violation of the FLSA and Plaintiff seeks injunctive 

and declaratory relief, overtime premiums for all overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by 

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 1 of 11
Defendants; liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law; and attorney’s fees, costs, 

and expenses incurred in this action. 

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Vincent Le Bron, is a United States citizen and citizen of Indiana, currently 

domiciled and residing in Valparaiso, Indiana.

4. Defendant Niles Industrial Services, LLC ("Niles") is a foreign limited liability company 

headquartered out of Fenton, Michigan and doing business in Indiana. Their Indiana headquarters are 

at 284 West 1050 North, Chesterton, Indiana, but they also operate in various locations throughout Lake 

and Porter counties in Indiana, as well as Joliet, Illinois.

5. Defendant William Langford ("Langford") is a United States citizen and citizen of Indiana, 

currently domiciled and residing in LaPorte, Indiana.

6. Defendant, Christopher Kaminski ("Kaminski") is a United States citizen and citizen of 

Indiana, currently domiciled and residing in northwest Indiana.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This court has original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1311 for the claims 

brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and this court has personal

jurisdiction because defendants conduct business within this court's district and defendants Langford 

and Kaminski are residents of Indiana, currently residing and domiciled in this court's district. 

8. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), inasmuch as Defendants

have offices, conduct business, and can be found in the Northern District of Indiana, and the causes of 

action set forth herein have arisen and occurred in the Northern District of Indiana. Venue is also 

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 2 of 11
proper under 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2) because Defendants have substantial business contacts within the 

state of Indiana. 

9. At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, “employers” engaged 

in the interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce” within the meaning 

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203. At all relevant times, Defendants have employed, and/or continues to 

employ, “employee*s+,” including Plaintiff and each of the putative representative action plaintiffs. 

10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have had gross operating revenues in excess of 

$500,000.00 (five hundred thousand dollars). 

Facts Giving Rise to Plaintiff's Claims Under the FLSA

11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 of this complaint as 

though they were herein set forth in full. 

12. Plaintiff worked as a full-time employee for Niles Industrial Services from approximately 

October, 2011 to February, 2013.

13. During Plaintiff's employment with Niles, he worked out of their location at 284 West 

1050 North, Chesterton, Indiana, but also worked at various sites around Indiana, including Porter, East 

Chicago, and also in Joliet, Illinois. 

14. He estimates that he performed at least 80 percent of his work in Lake and Porter 

counties in Indiana.

15. During his entire employment with Niles, he worked as a vacuum truck driver/operator, 

and was paid on an hourly basis. He worked with approximately eight other drivers and over 50 

laborers, all of whom were also hourly employees.

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 3 of 11
16. His job duties primarily were driving the vacuum truck to various sites, vacuuming up 

industrial debris such as acid, lime, coal dust, diesel fuel, grease, mud, and steel particles, dumping the 

debris (which included hazardous material), and then cleaning the trucks out with shovels and brooms. 

Laborers were responsible for washing out the trucks and running hoses from the trucks to the 

worksites. This was all done without respirators or face masks. 

17. During Plaintiff's employment with Niles, his direct supervisor was William ("Billy") 

Langford.

18. During his entire employment with Niles, Christopher ("Chris") Kaminski was President 

of Niles.

19. During Plaintiff's entire employment at Niles, David ("Dave") Williams was the 

supervisor at Arcelor Mittal, one of the sites at which Plaintiff worked.

20. During Plaintiff's entire employment at Niles, Kenneth ("Kenny") Williams was the 

supervisor at the Joliet, Illinois site at which he worked.

21. During Plaintiff's entire employment with Niles, the driver and laborer time-keeping 

system was the same: 

(a) The work schedules were created by Billy Langford and two schedulers. 

(b) Billy Langford had final approval on all work schedules.

(c) Schedulers would call drivers to inform them of their schedules.

(d) Drivers were rarely given more than a day's notice of their shift, and were often 

awoken in the middle of the night to report to work, immediately.

(e) There was no time-keeping clock or computer.

(f) Time was recorded by the supervisor on a paper.

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 4 of 11
(g) If a driver felt he was shorted on his paycheck, he would have to fill out a 

"shortage sheet", and give it to the scheduler.

(h) It was the driver's responsibility to ask for, and fill out, a shortage sheet.

22. If employees did not accept the work shift they would be reprimanded, and their jobs 

would be threatened.

23. Even though shifts were scheduled, drivers and laborers regularly were told by 

supervisors to keep working past their shifts.

24. Plaintiff personally was subjected to the practices listed in paragraphs 21-23. To wit, he 

was called to come in to work, often in the middle of the night, and regularly worked past the end of his 

shift, at his supervisor's direction.

25. During Plaintiff's entire employment with Niles, he was not paid for all of the hours that 

he worked, including many overtime hours. In fact, he personally witnessed Langford throw away his 

shortage sheets.

26. Plaintiff also spoke with other employees who informed him that they, too, were not 

paid. These employees include both laborers and drivers.

27. In late 2012, one of Plaintiff's co-workers told him that he informed Chris Kaminski 

(president of Niles), that drivers were getting shorted on their pay. Kaminski called a meeting with 

Plaintiff, Billy Langford, and Frank (a union steward). At that meeting, Plaintiff confirmed to Kaminski 

that Langford was not recording all of his hours worked. Langford denied it, but told Kaminski that he 

would "check on it." Kaminski told Langford that he should "treat (Plaintiff) right" because he was one 

of their best drivers. Kaminski gave Plaintiff one of his business cards and told Plaintiff to contact him if 

the problem continued. 

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 5 of 11
28. After that meeting, nothing changed. Langford never followed up with Plaintiff on the 

issue of unpaid wages, even though Plaintiff presented him with many "shortage sheets."

29. Langford continued to throw away Plaintiff's shortage sheets. 

30. Plaintiff continued to hear other drivers and laborers complaining about getting shorted 

on their checks. 

31. Plaintiff attempted to follow up with Kaminski, but Kaminski never took his calls. 

Plaintiff left voicemails on Kaminski 's cell phone and office numbers regarding the fact that he was still 

not getting paid for all hours worked. Kaminski ignored him and the two men never spoke again after 

the one meeting with Langford.

32. Plaintiff also complained to schedulers (Brian and Ron) about the fact he was not getting 

paid properly. Ron responded, "I don't give a fuck. That's not my fucking problem. That's your 

problem. Get the hell out of here." Brian responded to Plaintiff by telling Plaintiff to tell Langford.

33. Plaintiff regularly complained to Langford about the fact that he was being shorted on 

his checks. His answer was "write a fucking shortage sheet," and "it ain't my problem." He would also 

tell Plaintiff, "don't give me your bullshit; you're a liar."

34. Plaintiff also complained on numerous occasions to Kenny Williams and Dave Williams 

about getting shorted on his hours at their locations. Both men would only say, "Don't worry about it", 

and tell Plaintiff that they would "take care of it." They never did.

35. No one, including Langford and Kaminski, ever addressed Plaintiff's complaints.

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 6 of 11
36. Plaintiff also personally heard other hourly employees, both drivers and laborers,

complain to Langford and to the schedulers about getting shorted on their checks. These employees 

were told, like Plaintiff, to fill out shortage sheets.

COUNT ONE: FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME UNDER THE FLSA

37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint as 

though they were herein set forth in full.

38. Defendants are "covered employers" as defined by the FLSA.

39. Defendant Niles Industrial Services, LLC is a "covered entity", as defined by the FLSA.

40. Plaintiff is a "non-exempt", "covered employee", as defined by the FLSA.

41. The FLSA requires each covered employer, such as Defendants, to compensate all nonexempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half the regular rate of pay for work 

performed in excess of forty hours in a work week.

42. Defendants failed to compensate non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other 

employees, at a rate of not less than one and one-half the regular rate of pay for work performed in 

excess of forty hours in a work week. 

43. Defendants' actions and omissions have violated, and continue to violate, the FLSA by, 

inter alia: failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated for certain overtime hours at a rate equal 

to or greater than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed; failing to keep 

accurate records of hours worked; and deliberately falsifying pay and timekeeping records in order to 

further a scheme to avoid payment of proper overtime compensation.

44. Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the 

FLSA, on behalf of all persons who were, are, or will be employed by the Defendant as non-exempt 

hourly drivers and laborers in Chesterton, Indiana, Porter, Indiana, and East Chicago, Indiana within 

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 7 of 11
three years from the commencement of this action who have not been compensated at one and onehalf times the regular rate of pay for all services performed in excess of forty hours per week. 

45. This complaint is being brought and maintained as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the FLSA for all claims asserted by the Plaintiff because his claims are similar to 

the claims of the putative representative action plaintiffs. 

46. The names and addresses of the putative representative action plaintiffs are available 

from Defendants. To the extent required by law, notice will be provided to said individuals via First Class 

Mail and/or by the use of techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used in 

representative actions. 

47. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the putative representative action 

plaintiffs at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in 

excess of forty hours in a work week, and therefore, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). 

48. Defendants' failure to comply with the FLSA caused Plaintiffs and putative 

representative plaintiffs to suffer loss of wages thereon.

49. Defendants' conduct alleged herein constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the 

meaning of 29 U.S.C. §255(a).

50. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and putative representative plaintiffs for 

weekly overtime despite being put on notice and applied their compensation policy in reckless disregard 

of FLSA requirements, thereby subjecting themselves to the three-year statute of limitations for 

damages.

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 8 of 11
51. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees of Defendants who 

compose the putative representative action plaintiffs, seek damages in the amount of all respective 

unpaid overtime compensations at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work 

performed in excess of forty hours in a work week, plus liquidated damages, as provided by the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. §216(b), and such other legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. 

52. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees of Defendants who 

compose putative representative action plaintiffs, seeks recovery of all attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses of this action, to be paid by Defendants, as provided by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all proposed putative representative action 

plaintiffs, prays for relief as follows: 

a. Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of the proposed putative 

representative action plaintiffs and prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) to all 

putative representative action plaintiffs (the FLSA opt-in class), apprising them of the pendency of this 

action and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this action by filing individual Consents To 

Join pursuant to U.S.C. §216(b); 

b. Designation of plaintiff, Vincent Le Bron, as Representative Plaintiff of the putative 

representative action plaintiffs; 

c. Designation of Marissa McDermott of McDermott Law Office as the attorney

representing the putative representative action plaintiffs; 

d. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.; 

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 9 of 11
e. An injunction against Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees, 

representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, as provided by law, from 

engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, and patterns set forth herein; 

f. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the putative representative action plaintiffs and 

against Defendants on their claims for overtime pay under the FLSA, with an award of damages for 

overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the putative representative action plaintiffs, including 

liquidated damages;

g. Costs and expenses of this action incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

expenses, and expert fees; 

h. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 

i. Any and all such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems 

necessary, just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Marissa McDermott_________________

Marissa McDermott

Indiana Attorney 22465-64

MCDERMOTT LAW OFFICE

marissa@mcdermottlegal.net

Attorney for Plaintiff

9013 Indianapolis Boulevard

Highland, Indiana 46322

Phone: (219) 838-9200

Facsimile: (219) 972-7110

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 10 of 11
JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff, by counsel, hereby demands trial by jury of all issues set forth herein that are 

capable of being tried by a jury.

_/s/ Marissa McDermott_________________

Marissa McDermott, Esq.

MCDERMOTT LAW OFFICE

9013 Indianapolis Boulevard

Highland, Indiana 46322

Tel. 219-838-9200

Fax 219-972-7110

Attorney for Plaintiff

case 2:14-cv-00209-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/16/14 page 11 of 11