1 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

Alan J. Leiman (OSB No. 980746)

alan@leimanlaw.com

Drew G. Johnson (OSB No. 114289)

drew@leimanlaw.com

Stacy A. McKerlie (OSB No. 134230)

stacy@leimanlaw.com

LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

RICHARD BEEMER, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIFIRST CORPORATION, a Massachusetts 

Corporation,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: 6:15-cv-01368

COLLECTIVE and CLASS 

ACTION ALLEGATION 

COMPLAINT; OREGON WAGE 

AND HOUR LAWS

Fair Labor Standards Act 29 USC § 

201 et seq.; Oregon Wage and Hour 

Laws (ORS Chapter 652)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff RICHARD BEEMER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated 

current and former employees of Defendant, brings this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

collective action and Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 23 class action Complaint for violations of the FLSA 

and Oregon Wage and Hour laws against Defendant, UNIFIRST CORPORATION, (hereinafter 

“UniFirst”). Plaintiff makes his allegations based upon personal knowledge, information, and 

belief.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 15
2 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a collective and class action suit to recover unpaid overtime brought under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and statutory penalties under Oregon Wage 

and Hour Laws, ORS Chapter 652 (“Oregon Wage and Hour Laws”).

2. The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime at one and onehalf times the employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff 

alleges that he and others are similarly situated as a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of 

classifying its Route Sales Representatives (“RSRs”) as exempt from the overtime compensation 

requirements of the FLSA and failing to pay overtime, and by Defendant’s failure to pay all 

wages earned when due under Oregon Wage and Hour Laws.

3. This action seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, taxable costs of 

court, pre- and post-judgment interest and penalty wages for Defendant’s willful failure to pay 

wages when due, including the correct amount of overtime wages, and other relief pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) and Oregon Wage and Hour Laws for Plaintiff and for all others similarly 

situated in the course of their employment with Defendant.

4. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated demand a jury trial on all issues that may be 

tried to a jury.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as this action arises under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and 28 U.S.C. §1337, 

as it arises under acts of Congress regulating commerce. Jurisdiction of the state law claims is 

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 15
3 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims form a part of the same 

case or controversy as the federal claims under Article III of the United States Constitution.

6. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant

owned an operation that was an enterprise in interstate commerce or in the production of 

interstate commerce as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and § 203(s). Based upon 

information and belief, the annual gross sales volume of Defendant’s business was in excess of 

$500,000 per annum at all times material to this Complaint. 

7. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant

managed, owned and/or operated a uniform rental company, and regularly exercised the 

authority to hire and fire employees, and control the finances and operations of such business. 

By virtue of such control and authority, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff, and all others 

similarly situated, as such term is defined by the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.

8. Defendant directly or indirectly acted in the interest of an employer towards Plaintiff 

within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, including without 

limitation, directly or indirectly controlling all employment terms and conditions of Plaintiff and 

all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant.

9. Venue is proper in this District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred in the District of Oregon.

PARTIES

10. Defendant UniFirst Corporation operates a uniform rental and janitorial supply services 

company based in Wilmington, Massachusetts with facilities throughout the United States, 

including Eugene, Oregon and Portland, Oregon.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 15
4 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

11. Defendant is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Oregon Wage and 

Hour Laws (ORS Chapter 652).

12. Plaintiff Richard Beemer is a resident of Lane County, Oregon.

13. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Route Sales Representative (“RSR”) at Defendant’s 

Eugene, Oregon facility on or around November 29, 2010. Plaintiff subsequently worked for a 

period of time as a District Service Supervisor at the same facility. On or around October 4, 

2012, Plaintiff resumed working as an RSR. Defendant currently employs Plaintiff as an RSR at 

Defendant’s Eugene, Oregon facility. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Defendant maintains a warehouse in Portland, Oregon, where new and refurbished goods 

are stored as inventory for fulfillment of future customer needs. Defendant keeps these goods 

within Oregon until ordered by one of Defendant’s customers in Oregon. 

15. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, the majority of 

the work performed by Plaintiff and Defendant’s other Oregon RSRs consists of picking up dirty 

uniforms, floor mats and various related items from Defendant’s customers, and delivering clean 

uniforms, floor mats, and various related items to those same customers.

16. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff and 

Defendant’s other Oregon RSRs also deliver new uniforms and other products to customers on 

their routes. The goods delivered come from the inventory maintained in Portland, Oregon. 

Plaintiff estimates that delivering new uniforms or other new products to Defendant’s customers 

amounts to 2-5% of the work he performs. 

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 15
5 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

17. As an RSR, Defendant pays Plaintiff and the other Oregon RSRs on a “percentage-ofvolume” basis based on the value of the accounts serviced by each RSR, which varies each 

workweek. Plaintiff is not paid an hourly rate of pay based on actual hours worked.

18. Defendant tracks and records the hours worked by RSRs, including the number of 

overtime hours worked each week.

19. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint until on or 

around June 2015, Defendant automatically reduced the number of hours worked each day by 

Plaintiff and similarly situated RSRs by 30 minutes for a meal break, regardless of whether or 

not the RSR was relieved of all duties for 30 continuous minutes.

20. It is Defendant’s policy and practice to classify RSRs as exempt from the overtime pay 

requirements of the FLSA and Oregon Wage and Hour Laws and to not pay overtime at one and 

one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

21. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked and continues to work 

hours in excess of forty hours per workweek. Plaintiff’s typical work schedule begins at 5:00 

a.m. and continues until Plaintiff has completed his tasks for the day, often between 4:00 p.m. 

and 5:00 p.m. five days a week. 

22. For example, during the week of August 24, 2014, Plaintiff worked 55.5 hours, not 

including unpaid meal breaks. Plaintiff was not paid overtime. Plaintiff was not paid one half 

times his regular rate of pay as overtime compensation for the 15.5 hours worked over 40 during 

that workweek.

23. Plaintiff has not been paid the correct amount of overtime compensation for hours he 

worked in excess of forty in any workweek while working as an RSR for Defendant. 

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 15
6 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

24. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant 

knew or should have known when Plaintiff was working. 

25. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint until on or 

around June 2015, Defendant knew or should have known when Plaintiff did not receive a full 

30-minute meal break.

26. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant 

knew how much it paid each workweek to Plaintiff.

27. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint until on or 

around June 2015, Defendant had knowledge that Plaintiff did not receive 30-minute meal breaks 

because Defendant’s supervisors would periodically accompany Plaintiff on his route. 

28. Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are entitled to be paid compensation for all 

hours worked, including overtime hours, under the FLSA.

29. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant 

knew when its RSR employees were working more than forty hours in a workweek. 

30. At all material times, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other similarly situated 

individuals overtime pay calculated pursuant to the FLSA, for hours worked in excess of forty 

per workweek. 

31. Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were all subject to the same company policies, 

payroll practices, and timekeeping practices of Defendant.

32. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals seeking overtime compensation, liquidated damages, penalty wages, costs, and 

attorneys’ fees arising from the law violations set forth herein.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 6 of 15
7 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

33. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant 

failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-209 in that Plaintiff performed services and labor for 

Defendant for which Defendant failed to pay the correct amount of overtime when due. Plaintiff 

and all similarly situated individuals are entitled to liquidated damages and penalties for 

Defendant’s willful failure to pay overtime when due.

34. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Leiman & Johnson, LLC to represent him 

individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, and has incurred attorney fees and 

costs in bringing this action. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(FLSA Overtime Violations - 29 U.S.C § 207)

Collective Action

35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 34 above.

36. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff 

performed duties for the benefit of, and on behalf of, Defendant under employment terms and 

conditions set by Defendant.

37. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant was 

required to pay Plaintiff and the hereinafter-defined FLSA Class members in accordance with the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA.

38. At all material times, Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

39. At all material times, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours 

worked over 40 in a workweek.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 7 of 15
8 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

40. Plaintiff brings this collective class action under § 216(b) of the FLSA against Defendant 

for unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages on behalf of himself and 

the following persons:

All current and former Route Sales Representatives employed by 

Defendant UniFirst Corporation in Oregon since July 22, 2012 to 

the entry of judgment in this case, who worked over 40 hours in 

any workweek and were not paid overtime at a rate of one and onehalf times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in 

a workweek (the “Collective Action Members”).

41. Plaintiff brings the FLSA claim for unpaid overtime and liquidated damages as an “optin” collective action pursuant to 29 USC § 216(b). The FLSA claims may be pursued by those 

Collective Action Members who opt-in to this case pursuant to 29 USC § 216(b).

42. Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members are similarly situated by Defendant’s 

policy of classifying them as exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions and by Defendant’s 

failure to pay overtime at one and one-half times the employees’ weekly regular rate of pay. 

43. Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of Collective Action Members, seeks relief on a 

collective basis, alleging the FLSA was violated when he and others were not paid the correct 

amount of overtime due to them under the FLSA. 

44. The number and identity of the other members of the putative Collective Action class

may be readily determined from the records of Defendant, and potential opt-in Collective Action 

Members may be easily and quickly notified of the pendency of this action. Collective Action 

Members may be notified of the pendency of the action by first-class mail, email, physical and 

online posting, and other available methods. 

45. Defendant’s classification of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members as exempt 

resulted in the underpayment of overtime to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, and 

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 8 of 15
9 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

Defendant has not paid Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members the correct amount of 

overtime owed. 

46. Defendant violated §207 of the FLSA when it willfully failed to pay overtime to Plaintiff 

and Collective Action Members at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours 

worked over 40 in a workweek during the applicable statutory period. 

47. As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and Collective Action Members for all 

overtime earned, Plaintiff and Collective Action Members have incurred actual damages and are 

entitled to liquidated damages or a penalty under ORS 652.150, whichever is greater, but not 

both.

48. Plaintiff’s and the Collective Action Members’ damages are readily ascertainable from 

Defendant’s time and payroll records, which are in the custody and control of Defendant.

49. By reason of said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff and 

Collective Action Members have suffered damages and have also incurred costs and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(FRCP Rule 23 - Oregon Wage Class Action)

50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 49 above.

51. Plaintiff brings a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself 

and the following class of persons:

All current and former Route Sales Representatives employed by 

Defendant UniFirst Corporation in Oregon since July 22, 2012, to the 

entry of judgment in this case, who worked over 40 hours in any 

workweek and were not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times 

their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek (the 

“Rule 23 Class Members”).

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 9 of 15
10 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

52. All Rule 23 Class Members who do not opt-out may pursue their Oregon state law claim 

if that claim is certified for class-wide treatment.

53. Plaintiff’s state law claims satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) class action prerequisites of 

numerosity of members, commonality of questions of law and fact, typicality of class claims, and 

fair and adequate representation of class member interests.

a. Numerosity (Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a)(1)): This class action satisfies the numerosity 

standards. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that there may 

be at least twenty-five (25) putative Rule 23 Class Members. As a result, joinder 

of all Rule 23 Class Members in a single action is impracticable. The precise 

number of Rule 23 Class Members and their identities and contact information are 

unknown to Plaintiffs but can be easily ascertained from Defendant’s personnel 

and payroll records. Rule 23 Class Members may be notified of the pendency of 

the action by first-class mail, email, physical and online posting, and other 

available methods. 

b. Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a)(2)): Questions of law and fact common to all 

Rule 23 Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members. All Rule 23 Class Members were subject to the same payroll practices 

and misclassification that resulted in the failure to pay all wages earned when due 

to all Rule 23 Class Members.

c. Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)): Plaintiff’s claims are typical of Rule 23 

Class Members’ claims because:

1. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members were subject to the same payroll 

practices and company policies, including but not limited to, practices and 

policies relating to the classification of RSRs as exempt from overtime;

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 10 of 15
11 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

2. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members were subject to the same payroll 

practices and company policies, including but not limited to, practices and 

policies relating to Defendant’s failure to pay overtime to RSRs;

3. Plaintiff, together with all Rule 23 Class Members, are owed unpaid overtime 

as a result of the classification of RSRs as exempt from overtime and failure 

to pay overtime;

4. Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same legal and remedial theories as those of 

the Rule 23 Class Members and have similar factual circumstances; and

5. Plaintiff has suffered the same or similar injury as the Rule 23 Class 

Members.

d. Adequacy of Plaintiff’s Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)): Plaintiff will 

fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class because:

1. There is no conflict between his claims and the Rule 23 Class Members’

claims;

2. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are skilled and experienced, and who will 

vigorously prosecute the litigation;

3. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class Members; and,

4. Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Rule 23 Class Members.

54. Questions of law and fact common to the Rule 23 Class exist that predominate over any 

questions solely affecting the individual Rule 23 Class Members, include but are not limited to:

a. whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members 

premium pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek 

within the meaning of ORS 652.120 and/or ORS 652.140; 

b. whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members as 

exempt from overtime; and

c. whether Defendant is liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not 

limited to, interest, costs, and disbursements and attorney fees.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 11 of 15
12 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

55. The common issues predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons, 

and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of consistency, economy, efficiency, 

fairness, and equity to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 

Oregon state law claim. 

56. A class action is the superior procedural vehicle for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

the claims asserted herein given that: 

a. There is minimal interest of members of this class in individually controlling their 

prosecution of claims under Oregon Wage and Hour Laws;

b. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that current employees 

fear retaliation and job loss if they bring individual claims; 

c. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation of these claims in this forum; and 

d. There are no unusual difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of 

this case as a class action.

57. The presentation of separate actions by individual Rule 23 Class Members creates the 

risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, and may establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendant and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of Rule 23 Class 

Members to protect their interests.

58. In the absence of a class action, Defendant would be unjustly enriched because it would 

be able to retain the benefits and fruits of wrongful violations of Oregon Wage and Hour Laws.

59. Within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant 

failed to tender payment for all wages earned when due to Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class Members 

for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek by Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class 

Members.

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 12 of 15
13 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

60. Plaintiff’s and the Rule 23 Class Members’ penalty wages are readily ascertainable from 

Defendant’s time and payroll records, which are in the custody and control of Defendant. 

61. At times material and subject to further discovery, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and 

Rule 23 Class Members for all wages earned when due, as required by ORS 652.120 and/or ORS 

652.140. By failing to pay the correct amount of overtime pay when due, either during 

employment or upon termination of employment, Defendant has violated ORS 652.120 and/or 

ORS 652.140, and is liable to Plaintiff and each Oregon Wage Class Member for penalty wages 

in amounts to be computed according to ORS 652.150.

62. As a result of Defendant’s willful failure to pay all wages earned when due to Plaintiff 

and those Rule 23 Class Members currently employed by Defendant, Defendant has violated 

ORS 652.120 and is liable to Plaintiff and those Rule 23 Class Members for penalty wages 

calculated according to ORS 652.150 in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment 

interest in an amount to be determined at trial.

63. As a result of Defendant’s willful failure to pay Plaintiff and those Rule 23 Class 

Members formerly, but no longer, employed by Defendant all wages due within the time allowed 

following termination of employment, Defendant has violated ORS 652.140 and is liable to those 

Rule 23 Class Members for penalty wages calculated according to ORS 652.150 in an amount to 

be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial.

64. By reason of said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Rule 

23 Class Members have suffered damages and have also incurred costs and reasonable attorney 

fees on behalf of all Rule 23 Class Members.

///

///

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 13 of 15
14 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the Collective Action Members, and Rule 

23 Class Members respectfully asks the Court to grant the following relief:

1. On the First Claim, award Plaintiff and Collective Action Members their actual 

damages for unpaid overtime in an amount to be determined at trial plus an equal amount as 

liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §207, or a penalty under 

ORS 652.150, whichever is greater, but not both;

2. On the Second Claim, award Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class Members their penalty 

wages calculated according to ORS 652.150 for violations of ORS 652.120 and/or ORS 652.140 

in amounts to be determined at trial;

3. Award Plaintiff and the FLSA Class and Rule 23 Class Members their reasonable 

attorney fees and costs;

4. Award Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals their pre-judgment and 

post-judgment interest; and 

5. Award Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals any and all such other 

legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 14 of 15
15 –COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT

DATED July 22, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s Alan J. Leiman________ 

Alan J. Leiman

E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 980746

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

__/s Drew G. Johnson_______

Drew G. Johnson

E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 114289

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

__/s Stacy A. McKerlie_______

Stacy A. McKerlie

E-mail: stacy@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 134230

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 15 of 15