1

IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARK BLACKMAN, JENNETTE )

ROBERTS, WILLIAM L. )

HARDEN, ARNOLD GREEN, AND )

JAMES McCRACKEN )

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION

) NUMBER: 3:11-cv-146

)

)

) JURY DEMAND

MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL )

RESOURCES, INC., TL WALLACE )

CONSTRUCTION, INC., O’BRIEN’S )

RESPONSE MANAGEMENT GROUP, )

INC., GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT )

SERVICES, INC., GOLDEN )

PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC., )

PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT )

SERVICES GROUP, INC. D/B/A PEO )

MANAGEMENT GROUP AND/OR )

STAFFING CONCEPTS, STAFFING )

CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

D/B/A SCI COMPANIES, INC., AND )

EMERGENCY RESPONSE GROUP )

)

Defendants. )

)

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 18
2

Come now the Plaintiffs, Mark Blackman, Jennette Roberts, William

L. Harden, Arnold Green, and James McCracken (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),

by and through their undersigned counsel, and state the following:

1. Defendant Midwest Environmental Resources, Inc. (“MER”) is a

corporation conducting business in the State of Florida. MER is a

contractor of British Petroleum (“BP”) engaged in clean-up efforts

related to the massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in

April 2010. MER hired and/or paid Safety Techs to perform general

clean-up duties along the beaches of Florida. Safety Techs were not

required to have any specialized training prior to their hire, but were

trained for two to three days prior to beginning work. MER employed

approximately 400 to 450 employees in July of 2010 to perform

general clean-up duties along the beaches of Florida.

2. Defendant TL Wallace Construction, Inc. (“TLW”) is a corporation

conducting business in the State of Florida. TLW, in conjunction with

the other Defendants, hired and/or paid employees, including the

Plaintiffs, to engage in clean-up efforts along the beaches of Florida

related to the massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in

April 2010 .

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 18
3

3. Defendant O’Brien’s Response Management, Inc. (“O’Brien’s”) is a

corporation doing business in the State of Florida. On information

and belief, O’Brien’s is a contractor of British Petroleum (“BP”)

engaged in clean-up efforts related to the massive oil spill that

occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. O’Brien’s, in

conjunction with the other Defendants, hired and/or paid Safety Techs

to perform these general clean-up duties along the beaches of Florida.

4. Defendant Global Employment Services, Inc. (“Global”) is a

corporation conducting business in the State of Florida. Global is a

staffing company who, in conjunction with the other Defendants,

hired and/or paid employees, including Plaintiffs, to engage in cleanup efforts related to the massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of

Mexico in April 2010.

5. Defendant Golden Professional Solutions, Inc. (“Golden”) is a

corporation conducting business in the State of Florida. Golden is a

consulting company who, in conjunction with the other Defendants,

hired and/or paid employees, including Plaintiffs, to engage in cleanup efforts related to the massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of

Mexico in April 2010.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 3 of 18
4

6. Defendant Professional Management Services Group, Inc. (“PMS”)

d/b/a PEO Management Group and/or Staffing Concepts, is a

corporation conducting business in the State of Florida. Upon

information and belief, PMS is a consulting company who, in

conjunction with the other Defendants, hired and/or paid employees,

including Plaintiffs, to engage in clean-up efforts related to the

massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010.

7. Defendant Staffing Concepts International, Inc. d/b/a SCI Companies,

Inc. (“SCI”) is a corporation conducting business in the State of

Florida. SCI is a human resources outsourcing company who, in

conjunction with the other Defendants, hired and/or paid employees,

including Plaintiffs, to engage in clean-up efforts related to the

massive oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010.

8. Defendant Emergency Response Group (“ERG”) is a corporation

conducting business in the State of Florida. Upon information and

belief, ERG is contractor of BP who, in conjunction with the other

Defendants, hired and/or paid employees, including Plaintiffs, to

engage in clean-up efforts related to the massive oil spill that occurred

in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 4 of 18
5

9. Plaintiff Mark Blackman resides in Milton, Florida . From June of

2010 until approximately November of 2010, Blackman was

employed by Defendants as a Safety Tech.

10.Plaintiff Jennette Roberts resides in Pensacola, Florida. From June of

2010 until approximately November 9, 2010, Roberts was employed

by Defendants as a Safety Tech.

11.Plaintiff William L. Harden resides in Pensacola, Florida. From June

of 2010 until approximately November 9, 2010, Harden was

employed by Defendants as a Safety Tech.

12.Plaintiff Arnold Green resides in Pensacola, Florida. From

approximately June of 2010 until September 15, 2010, Green was

employed by Defendants as a Safety Tech.

13. Plaintiff James McCracken resides in Pensacola, Florida. From

approximately June of 2010 until November 2010, McCracken was

employed by Defendants as a Safety Tech.

14.This action is brought pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.

and, specifically, the collective action provision of the Act found at

§216(b), for equitable and declaratory relief and to remedy violations

of the wage provisions of the FLSA by Defendants, which have

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 5 of 18
6

deprived Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated Safety Techs

employed by Defendants, of their lawful wages.

15.This action is brought to recover unpaid compensation, in the form of

unpaid wages and overtime, owed to the Plaintiffs, and all similarly

situated Safety Techs employed by Defendants, pursuant to the FLSA.

For up to three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Defendants

have had a uniform policy and practice of consistently requiring all

Safety Techs to work over 40 hours a week without paying them for

every hour worked and without all overtime compensation due to

them.

16.Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs employed by

Defendants were paid an hourly wage of between $11.00 and $14.00

per hour.

17.Initially, Plaintiffs and, on information and belief, all similarly

situated Safety Techs, were required to report to a parking lot and

check in at a bus that would take them to their worksite. The Safety

Techs were required to report and sign-in at either 2:00 or 3:00 a.m.

If they did not arrive and sign-in by the designated time (either 2:00 or

3:00 a.m.), they were not permitted to work that day. Once they

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 6 of 18
7

arrived and signed-in, the Safety Techs were not allowed to leave the

bus, even though the buses did not leave the parking lot until

approximately 3:30 a.m.

18.The bus then transported the employees to the Myrick Yard, where

they signed in by scanning their BP card. They were given something

to drink and underwent an orientation explaining their assignment for

the day.

19.The Safety Techs then got on different buses and departed for the

beaches at approximately 5:00 a.m. They arrived at the beaches

approximately 45 to 50 minutes later.

20.At the end of the day the buses eventually returned the Safety Techs

to their cars at approximately 5:00 or 5:15 p.m. Even though they had

were required by Defendants to arrive at either 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., they

were generally only paid for twelve hours of work.

21.After approximately one to two weeks, Plaintiffs were told they could

drive to the Myrick Yard directly. They nonetheless were still

required to arrive at either 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., even though they were

not paid until 4:30 a.m.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 7 of 18
8

22. Starting in July 2010, all Safety Techs were required to park at the

Pensacola Fairgrounds. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

Safety Techs were required to sign-in on a company bus at

approximately 2:00 a.m. The employees were not permitted to write

the actual time they were signing in on these “Accountability Sheets.”

The sign-in times were completed later by Defendants, and the sign-in

times were usually adjusted to 5:00 a.m. Employees were told if they

refused to sign this Accountability Sheet with either a blank or false

sign-in time, they would not be permitted to work. The employees

were not permitted to leave the bus once they signed in. The buses

departed for the Myrick Yard at 4:00 a.m. and arrived at the Myrick

Yard approximately twenty-five minutes later. At the Myrick Yard,

the buses stopped briefly for the employees to scan their BP cards,

receive something to drink, and get on different buses. Those buses

left at 5:00 a.m. and arrived at the beach approximately 45 to 50

minutes later. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs

were not returned to their cars until approximately 5:00 or 5:15 p.m.

Despite working this fifteen-hour day, Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated Safety Techs were only paid for twelve hours of work.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 8 of 18
9

23. Starting in August 2010, the Plaintiffs were again permitted to drive

directly to the Myrick Yard, where they were required to sign in at

4:30 a.m., depart on a bus at 5:00 a.m., and arrive back at the Myrick

Yard at 5:00 to 5:15 p.m. Since August of 2010, Plaintiffs and all

other similarly situated Safety Techs have only been paid for twelve

hours of work per day, even though they worked over twelve hours

each day.

24. Some workers, including Plaintiffs Jennette Roberts and James

McCracken, worked the night shift, from approximately 6:00 p.m. to

6:00 a.m. These workers were also required to arrive two hours

before the buses left, at 4:00 p.m., to sign in and wait for the 6:00 p.m.

departure. They also were not paid for the two hours of waiting time.

25.Employees were also required to sign blank “Pink Forms.” These

forms had blanks for entries regarding Employee Information, hours,

and zones worked. Employees were not permitted to fill in any part of

the “Pink Form” other than their signatures. Upon information and

belief, Defendants completed the remainder of these “Pink Forms”

with false information regarding the numbers of hours that Plaintiffs

and all other similarly situated Safety Techs worked. Plaintiffs and all

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 9 of 18
10

other similarly situated Safety Techs were not permitted to review

these forms after they had been completed by Defendants.

26.Employees who complained about not receiving proper pay or who

completed a “Discrepancy Form” identifying a discrepancy in their

paychecks were not permitted to return to work or were put on “stand

down,” meaning they were not called back to work.

27. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees were also

required to attend training lasting two or three days. Plaintiffs and

other similarly situated employees were not paid for this training time.

28.In performing their work as Safety Techs, Plaintiffs performed nonmanagerial duties and functions involving little, or no, independent

judgment and did not customarily and regularly exercise any

discretion. On information and belief, all Safety Techs employed by

Defendants had these same duties and responsibilities.

29.Plaintiffs’ duty, as well as the duty of all other similarly situated

Safety Techs, was to clean up the oil that had spilled onto Florida’s

beaches.

30.Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated Safety Techs, did not have

any employees of their own and did not have the authority to hire,

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 10 of 18
11

fire, promote, determine starting pay for, give pay raises to, discipline

or train employees of Defendants. Nor did they make any effective

recommendations regarding these actions. They also did not

determine budgets, delegate work assignments, or adopt policies on

behalf of the Defendants, or effectively recommend any such actions.

31.Plaintiffs and, on information and belief, all other similarly situated

Safety Techs, performed the same duties and responsibilities, have

been treated identically by Defendants, and are similarly situated for

purposes of their job duties.

32.Plaintiffs and, on information and belief, all other similarly situated

Safety Techs, did not customarily or regularly supervise two or more

employees for 80 hours a week.

33.Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Safety Techs who elect to

participate in this action, seek unpaid wages and overtime

compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys’

fees, and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

34.This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Florida,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 11 of 18
12

35.Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida

for the purpose of this lawsuit.

36.At all times material to this action, Defendants have been enterprises

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as

defined by §203(s)(1) of the FLSA.

37.At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “employers” of

Plaintiffs as defined by §203(d) of the FLSA.

38.At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs, and all others similarly

situated Safety Techs, were “employees” of Defendants as defined by

§203(e)(1) of the FLSA. They also worked for Defendants within the

territory of the United States within three years preceding the filing of

this lawsuit.

39.The provisions set forth in §207 of the FLSA apply to Defendants,

and the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Safety Techs were covered

by §207 of the FLSA during their employment with Defendants.

40.On information and belief, Defendants have intentionally failed and/or

refused to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs

according to the provisions of the FLSA.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 12 of 18
13

41.Defendants’ systems and practices relating to their non-payment of

earned wages and overtime to Plaintiffs and all similarly situated

Safety Techs, which deprive the Defendants of any FLSA overtime

exemptions, have existed since at least June of 2010.

42.On information and belief, Defendants have been aware of the

requirements of the FLSA and its corresponding regulations and their

own violations of the FLSA since at least June of 2010. Despite this

knowledge, Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly

situated Safety Techs the amount of pay required by the FLSA.

43.There are numerous similarly situated Safety Techs of Defendants

who have been improperly compensated in violation of the FLSA and

who would benefit from the issuance of Court-Supervised Notice of

the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit.

These similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are

readily identifiable and can be located through Defendants’ records -

specifically, all Safety Techs who have been employed by Defendants

and have not been properly compensated would benefit from CourtSupervised Notice and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit and

should be so notified.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 13 of 18
14

44.On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in a widespread

pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing

to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Safety Techs in accordance

with §207 of the FLSA.

45.As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and all

other similarly situated Safety Techs have suffered damages by failing

to receive compensation in accordance with §207 of the FLSA.

46.In addition to the amount of unpaid wages and benefits owed to the

Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated Safety Techs, they are also

entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and prejudgment interest.

47.On information and belief, Defendants’ actions in failing to

compensate Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs in

violation of the FLSA, were willful.

48.On information and belief, Defendants have not made a good faith

effort to comply with the FLSA.

49.Plaintiffs and all Safety Techs are also entitled to an award of

attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 14 of 18
15

50.Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs have no plain,

adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged

herein and this suit for lost overtime and wages, back-pay, and a

declaratory judgment is their only means of securing adequate relief.

51.Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Safety Techs are now

suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from

Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by

this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly

situated Safety Techs, pursuant to §216(b) of the FLSA, pray for the

following relief:

1. At the earliest possible time, they be allowed to give notice, or

that the Court issue such Notice, to all Safety Techs who have

been employed by Defendants during the three years

immediately preceding the filing of this suit, and to all other

potential plaintiffs who may be similarly situated, informing

them that this action has been filed, the nature of the action, and

of their right to opt-into this lawsuit if they were not paid

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 15 of 18
16

compensation and benefits for all hours worked pursuant to 29

U.S.C. §216(b);

2. An order awarding damages in the amount of their respective

unpaid compensation and benefits, plus an equal amount of

liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), and/or

prejudgment interest;

3. An order awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, including the

costs and expenses of this action;

4. Such other legal and equitable relief including, but not limited

to, any declaratory relief to which they may be entitled;

5. An order requiring Defendants to make Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated Safety Techs whole by awarding them lost

wages (plus interest) and liquidated damages; and

6. Plaintiffs further demand a jury to try the issues when joined.

JURY DEMAND

THE PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY.

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 16 of 18
17

DATED: March 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/_______________

Joshua R. Gale

FL Bar No.: 63283

Attorney for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis LLC

Main Street Center

101 North Woodland Blvd.

Suite 600

DeLand, FL 32720

TEL: (386) 675 - 6946

FAX: (386) 675 -6947

Defendants May Be Served At:

Midwest Environmental Resources, Inc.

19597 Chef Menteur Hwy

New Orleans, LA 70129

TL Wallace Construction, Inc.

CT Corporation System

1200 South Pine Island Road

Plantation, FL 33324

O’Brien’s Response Management Group, Inc.

NRAI Services, Inc.

515 E. Park Ave.

Tallahassee FL 32301

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 17 of 18
18

Global Employment Services, Inc.

Thomas C. Staples

41 N. Jefferson St. Suite 400

Pensacola, FL 32501

Golden Professional Solutions, Inc.

Kevin D. Nelson

30 S. Spring Street

Pensacola, FL 32502

Professional Management Services Group, Inc., d/b/a

PEO Management Group and/or Staffing Concepts

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee FL 32301

Staffing Concepts International, Inc. d/b/a SCI Companies, Inc.

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee FL 32301

Emergency Response Group

Robert Huard

215 Fair Point Dr.

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/28/11 Page 18 of 18