-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Clifford P. Bendau, II (030204)

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road, Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Telephone: (480) 296-7887

Facsimile: (480) 429-3679

Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brent Hanke,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, d/b/a Salut 

Kitchen Bar, Anastasios Tirkas, and David 

Freedman,

 Defendants,

No. __________________________

COMPLAINT

(Demand for Jury Trial)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Brent Hanke (“Plaintiff”), individually, by and through the 

undersigned attorney and sues the Defendant, Vino Pinot Dining, LLC d/b/a Salut Kitchen 

Bar (“Defendant Vino Pinot”), Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman (collectively 

“Defendants”) and he alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

2. The FLSA was enacted “to protect all covered workers from substandard 

wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Ark Best Freight Sys. Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 

739 (1981). Under the FLSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees a minimum 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

wage of pay for all time spent working during their regular 40 hour workweeks. See 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a). The FLSA’s definition of the term “wage,” in turn, recognizes that under 

certain circumstances, an employer of tipped employees may credit a portion of its 

employees’ tips against its minimum wage obligation, a practice commonly referred to as 

taking a “tip credit.” See id. § 203(m). The FLSA further recognizes that, under certain 

circumstances, an employee may be engaged in “dual jobs,” during which an employer may 

only impose a tip credit on an employee’s wages for time spent working while engaged in a 

tip-producing occupation, or a non-tipped occupation under circumstances in which a 

tipped employee must perform non-tipped labor in excess of 20 percent of his or her regular 

workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). See also 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), Department of Labor 

Field Operations Handbook § 30d00(e). 

3. The Arizona Wage Act, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 23-363, 

establishes a minimum wage within the State of Arizona. ARS § 23-363 recognizes that, 

under certain circumstances, employers may impose a tip credit of the wages of their tipped 

employees of up to $3.00 per hour. See ARS § 23-363(c).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq. because this civil action arises under the Constitution and law of the 

United States. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367 

because the state law claims asserted herein are so related to claims in this action over which 

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii) because acts 

giving rise to the claims of Plaintiff occurred within the District of Arizona, and Defendants

regularly conduct business in and have engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein –

and, thus, are subject to personal jurisdiction in – this judicial district.

PARTIES

6. At all material times, Plaintiff is an individual residing in Maricopa County,

Arizona, and is a former employee of Defendants.

7. At all material times, Defendant Vino Pinot was a limited liability company

duly licensed to transact business in the State of Arizona. Defendant does business, has 

offices, and/or maintains agents for the transaction of its customary business in Maricopa 

County, Arizona.

8. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. At all relevant 

times, Defendants, acting through its agents, representatives, employees, managers, 

members, and/or other representatives had the authority to hire and fire employees, 

supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of employment, determined the 

rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants. In any event, at all relevant times, Defendants were 

employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and employed Plaintiff.

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Anastasios Tirkas owns, operates as a 

manager of, operates as a member of, and/or possesses a similar interest in Vino Pinot 

Dining, LLC. At all relevant times, Defendant Anastasios Tirkas had the authority to hire 

and fire employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

employment, determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment 

records in connection with Plaintiff’s employment with Vino Pinot Dining, LLC. In any 

event, at all relevant times, Defendant Anastasios Tirkas was an employer subject to the 

FLSA and employed Plaintiff.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anastasios Tirkas was and continues 

to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

11. Jane Doe Tirkas is the fictitious name for Defendant Anastasios Tirkas’ 

spouse. When her true name has been ascertained, this Complaint shall be amended 

accordingly. Anastasios Tirkas and Jane Doe Tirkas have caused events to take place giving 

rise to this Complaint to which their marital community is fully liable.

12. At all relevant times, Defendant David Freedman owns, operates as a manager 

of, operates as a member of, and/or possesses a similar interest in Vino Pinot Dining, LLC. 

At all relevant times, Defendant David Freedman had the authority to hire and fire 

employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of employment, 

determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records in 

connection with Plaintiff’s Employment with Vino Pinot Dining, LLC. In any event, at all 

relevant times, Defendant David Freedman was an employer subject to the FLSA and 

employed Plaintiff.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant David Freedman was and continues 

to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

14. Jane Doe Freedman is the fictitious name for Defendant David Freedman’s 

spouse. When her true name has been ascertained, this Complaint shall be amended 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

accordingly. David Freedman and Jane Doe Freedman have caused events to take place 

giving rise to this Complaint to which their marital community is fully liable.

15. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

16. The provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., apply to Vino 

Pinot Dining, LLC, Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman.

17. At all relevant times, Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, Anastasios Tirkas, and David 

Freedman were and continue to be “employers” as defined by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

18. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s work and wages at all relevant times.

19. Plaintiff, in his work for Defendants, was employed by an enterprise engaged 

in commerce that had annual gross sales of at least $500,000.

NATURE OF THE CLAIM

20. Defendants own and/or operates as Vino Pinot Dining, LLC d/b/a Salut 

Kitchen Bar, an enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

21. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a tipped employee as defined by the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., to work as a server, and Plaintiff worked for Defendants

between approximately March 1, 2013 and March 31, 2015, when Plaintiff left his

employment with Defendants. 

22. Rather than pay their tipped employees the applicable minimum wage, for the 

time Plaintiff was paid as a tipped employee, Defendants imposed a tip credit upon Plaintiff 

at below the applicable minimum wage.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

23. As a result of Defendants’ imposition of a tip credit, Plaintiff was forced to 

perform work at an hourly rate that was less than the applicable minimum wage.

24. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of requiring Plaintiff to perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

his regular workweek and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweeks.

25. Examples of non-tipped labor related to Plaintiff’s tipped occupation that 

exceeded 20% of Plaintiff’s regular workweek, include, but are not limited to: preparatory 

and workplace maintenance tasks such as brewing tea, brewing coffee, rolling silverware, 

cleaning soft drink dispensers, wiping down tables, setting tables, busing tables, cutting and 

stocking fruit, stocking ice, taking out trash, scrubbing walls, sweeping floors, restocking togo supplies, cleaning booths, cleaning ramekins, sweeping, mopping, restocking all stations,

washing dishes, and breaking down and cleaning the expo line.

26. Examples of non-tipped labor unrelated to Plaintiff’s tipped occupation that 

Plaintiff performed during his regular workweeks, include, but are not limited to: preparatory 

and workplace maintenance tasks such as taking out trash, scrubbing walls, sweeping floors, 

cleaning booths, sweeping, mopping, washing dishes, breaking down and cleaning the expo 

line, restocking restrooms, and cleaning toilets, urinals, and restroom floors.

27. As a result of Defendant’s willful requirement that Plaintiff perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

his regular workweeks and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweeks, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

wage for such work that Plaintiff performed for Defendants, such that the average of 

Plaintiff’s hourly wages was less than the applicable minimum wage. 

28. In both policy and practice, Defendants regularly and consistently required 

Plaintiff to perform the above-listed non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in 

excess of twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s regular workweek before, during, and after 

scheduled shifts; before the restaurant was open to customers; after the restaurant was 

closed to customers; while Plaintiff had few to no customers to serve; before serving his first 

customer; and after being “cut” from serving customers. 

29. In both policy and practice, Defendants regularly and consistently required 

Plaintiff to perform the above-listed non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation

during the course of Plaintiff’s regular workweek before, during, and after scheduled shifts; 

before the restaurant was open to customers; after the restaurant was closed to customers; 

while Plaintiff had few to no customers to serve; before serving his first customer; and after 

being “cut” from serving customers. 

30. As a result of Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff perform such non-tipped 

labor related to his tipped occupation, and in excess of twenty percent (20%) of his regular 

workweek, while earning the reduced tip credit rate, Plaintiff was engaged in a non-tipped 

occupation, as defined by the “dual jobs” regulation 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.56(e) and (a) and the 

Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook §30d00(e), for such work performed 

during that time. Such work performed by Plaintiff included, but was not limited to, 

spending more than part of his time cleaning and setting tables and making coffee, and more 

than occasionally washing dishes or glasses. As a result, Defendants were prohibited from 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 22
-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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

taking the tip credit for the hours Plaintiff spent working in a non-tipped occupation. 

Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled, under 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to the 

overall minimum wage for all time spent performing such non-tipped, dual occupation labor. 

As such, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum wage for the work Plaintiff 

performed during his regular workweek, in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

31. As a result of Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff perform such non-tipped 

labor unrelated to his tipped occupation, while earning the reduced tip credit rate, Plaintiff 

was engaged in a non-tipped occupation, as defined by the “dual jobs” regulation 29 C.F.R. 

§§ 531.56(e) and (a) and the Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook §30d00(e), 

for such work performed during that time. Such work performed by Plaintiff included, but 

was not limited to, spending more than part of his time cleaning and setting tables and 

making coffee, and more than occasionally washing dishes or glasses. As a result, Defendants 

were prohibited from taking the tip credit for the hours Plaintiff spent working in his nontipped occupation. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled, under 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(a), to the overall 

minimum wage for all time spent performing such non-tipped, dual occupation labor. As 

such, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum wage for the work Plaintiff 

performed during his regular workweek, in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

32. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage for such hours worked, Defendants have violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

33. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 22
-9-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

34. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage for time spent performing non-tipped labor 

related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of his regular workweeks, and non-tipped 

labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the course of his regular workweeks.

35. In a given workweek, and during each and every workweek for which Plaintiff 

worked for Defendants as a tipped employee, Defendants required Plaintiff to perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

his regular workweek and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweek. Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum 

wage for such work that Plaintiff performed for Defendants, such that the average of 

Plaintiff’s hourly wages was less than the applicable minimum wage, in willful violation of 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a). Defendants required Plaintiff to perform non-tipped labor related to his

tipped occupation in excess of 20% of his regular workweeks and non-tipped labor unrelated 

to his tipped occupation each and every workweek during which he worked for Defendants.

36. For example, during workweek of July 28, 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff 

to perform, and Plaintiff did perform, non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in 

excess of 20 percent of his regular workweek, despite being compensated less than the full 

applicable minimum wage for such time. Such conduct by Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 

206(a).

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 22
-10-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

37. For example, during workweek of July 28, 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff 

to perform, and Plaintiff did perform, non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation 

during his regular workweek, despite being compensated less than the full applicable 

minimum wage for such time. Such conduct by Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

38. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants owe him similar wages 

for each and every workweek during which he worked for Defendants for the entire 

duration of his employment. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete and 

accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, and the 

burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

39. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately, if at all, 

record the time during which Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work. As such, 

Defendants’ records of Plaintiff’s time worked, if in existence, understate the duration of 

time each workweek that Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work.

40. Pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and Arizona wage and hour law, 

employers may impose a tip credit on their tipped employees’ wages of up $3.00 per hour, 

on the condition that, among other requirements, such employees have been informed by 

the employer of the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

41. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) 

at any time over the duration of their employment with Defendants. As such, Defendants 

were not entitled to impose any tip credit upon Plaintiff’s wages, and Defendants should 

have therefore paid the full Arizona minimum wage to Plaintiffs for all time Plaintiffs

worked during the course of their regular 40-hour workweeks.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 10 of 22
-11-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

42. As such, full minimum wage for such time is owed to Plaintiff for the entire 

time he was employed by Defendants.

43. Defendants also regularly and consistently required Plaintiff to attend meeting 

on restaurant premises and/or pursuant to restaurant policy with receiving any 

compensation whatsoever for such time.

44. Defendants also regularly and consistently engaged in the practice of 

manipulating Plaintiff’s time clock records, such that Plaintiff’s time records understated the 

amount of time that Plaintiff actually worked for Defendants.

45. As a result of Defendants’ time clock manipulation and refusal to compensate 

Plaintiff for mandatory meetings, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff minimum wage 

for all hours worked, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

46. For example, during the workweek of September 9, 2014, Defendants 

manipulated Plaintiff’s time clock records, such that Plaintiff’s time records understated the 

amount of time that Plaintiff actually worked for Defendants, thus bringing Plaintiff’s 

regular rate of pay below the applicable minimum wage, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

47. For example, during the workweek of September 9, 2014, Defendants 

required Plaintiff to attend a cleaning meeting for which Plaintiff was not compensated any 

wage whatsoever, thus bringing Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay below the applicable minimum 

wage, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

48. As such, full minimum wage, as well as any applicable overtime wages, is owed 

to Plaintiff for all hours worked off the clock.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 11 of 22
-12-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

49. Additionally, Defendants also engaged in the regular and consistent practice of 

requiring its tipped employees, including Plaintiff, to reimburse Defendants for broken 

dishes, unpaid checks, customer walk-outs, register shortages, and other similar issues.

50. Such deductions from Plaintiff’s paychecks were improper and brought 

Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay below the applicable minimum wage for the workweeks during 

which Defendants caused such amounts to be improperly deducted from Plaintiff’s tips 

and/or paycheck, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

51. For example, during the workweek of September 9, 2014, Defendants 

required Plaintiff to reimburse Defendants for breakage, broken dishes, improperly rung 

coupons, and/or customer walk-outs, thus bringing Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay below the 

applicable minimum wage, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

52. Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”).

53. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

54. Defendants refused and/or failed to properly disclose to or apprise Plaintiff of

his rights under the FLSA.

55. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s work and wages at all relevant times.

56. Due to Defendants’ illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from 

Defendants compensation for unpaid wages, an additional amount equal amount as 

liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action under 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 12 of 22
-13-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

COUNT ONE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

NON-TIPPED LABOR RELATED TO TIPPED WORK IN EXCESS OF 20% 

57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

58. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to comply with the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), and the Department of Labor Field Operations 

Handbook §30d00(e) by requiring Plaintiff in a given workweek, and during each and every 

workweek Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, to perform non-tipped labor related to his

tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent (20%) of his regular 40-hour workweek, while 

paying Plaintiff at the tip credit rate.

59. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff the full 

applicable minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA for time he spent 

performing non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent 

(20%) of a given workweek, for each and every workweek that Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendants, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

60. As such, full applicable minimum wage for such time Plaintiff performed nontipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent (20%) of his regular 

workweek is owed to Plaintiff for each and every workweek he was employed by 

Defendants.

61. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 13 of 22
-14-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

62. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the full minimum wage at an 

hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT TWO: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

NON-TIPPED LABOR UNRELATED TO TIPPED WORK 

63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

64. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to comply with the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), and the Department of Labor Field Operations 

Handbook §30d00(e) by requiring Plaintiff in a given workweek, and during each and every 

workweek Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, to perform non-tipped labor unrelated to 

his tipped occupation over the course of his regular 40-hour workweek, while paying 

Plaintiff at the tip credit rate.

65. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff the full 

applicable minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA for time he spent 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 14 of 22
-15-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

performing non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the course of a given 

workweek, for each and every workweek that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, in 

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

66. As such, full applicable minimum wage for such time Plaintiff performed nontipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the course of his regular workweek is

owed to Plaintiff for each and every workweek he was employed by Defendants.

67. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its 

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

68. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the full minimum wage at an 

hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 15 of 22
-16-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

COUNT THREE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF TIP CREDIT TO PLAINTIFF

69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

70. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to inform Plaintiff of the 

provisions of the “tip credit” and 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) and its supporting regulations. 

71. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff the full 

minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA for each and every workweek that 

Plaintiff worked for Defendants, for the duration of his employment, in violation of 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a).

72. As such, full applicable minimum wage for such time Plaintiff worked is owed 

to Plaintiff for the entire time he was employed by Defendants.

73. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – their

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full minimum wage over the course of their employment would 

violate federal and state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage 

requirements during Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a 

willful violation of the FLSA. 

74. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the full minimum wage at an 

hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 16 of 22
-17-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT FOUR: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

OFF-CLOCK WORK/UNPAID MEETINGS/TIME CLOCK MANIPULATION

75. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

76. Defendants also regularly and consistently required Plaintiff to attend meeting 

on restaurant premises and/or pursuant to restaurant policy with receiving any 

compensation whatsoever for such time.

77. Defendants also regularly and consistently manipulated Plaintiff’s time clock 

records such that Plaintiff’s time records understated the amount of time that Plaintiff 

actually worked for Defendants.

78. As a result of Defendants’ time clock manipulation and refusal to compensate 

Plaintiff for mandatory meetings, Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay 

Plaintiff minimum wage for all hours worked, for the duration of his employment, in 

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

79. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated the FLSA.

80. As such, full minimum wage is owed for all time spent attending unpaid 

meetings, all time lost due to time clock manipulation, and any other work performed off the 

clock.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 17 of 22
-18-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

81. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its 

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full minimum wage for time spent performing non-tipped labor 

and/or requiring Plaintiff to remain on restaurant premises would violate federal and state 

law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during Plaintiff’s

employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.

82. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff a wage equal to or greater than minimum wage for time Defendants required 

Plaintiff to work and/or remain on premises while off the clock.

83. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the difference between 

wages paid and Arizona’s minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an 

additional equal amount as liquidated damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable 

attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 18 of 22
-19-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

COUNT FIVE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

IMPROPER REQUIRED REIMBURSEMENT

84. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

85. Defendants also engaged in the regular and consistent practice of requiring its 

tipped employees, including Plaintiff, to reimburse Defendants for broken dishes, unpaid 

checks, customer walk-outs, register shortages, and other similar issues.

86. Such deductions from Plaintiff’s paychecks were improper and brought 

Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay below the applicable minimum wage for the workweeks during 

which Defendants caused such amounts to be improperly deducted from Plaintiff’s tips 

and/or paycheck, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

87. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated the FLSA.

88. As such, full minimum wage is owed for all amounts that Defendants 

improperly deducted from Plaintiff’s wages and/or tips.

89. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its 

requirement that Plaintiff reimburse Defendants for breakage, walkouts, shortages, etc.,

would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage 

requirements during Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a 

willful violation of the FLSA.

90. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff a wage equal to or greater than minimum wage for all time Plaintiff spent working 

for Defendants.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 19 of 22
-20-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

91. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the difference between 

wages paid and Arizona’s minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an 

additional equal amount as liquidated damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable 

attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT SIX: ARIZONA WAGE ACT

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE

92. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

93. As alleged in Counts One through Five, Defendants regularly and consistently 

failed and/or refused to compensate Plaintiff at the applicable Arizona minimum wage rate 

for all hours worked, during each and every workweek during which Plaintiff worked for 

Defendants.

94. As a result of Defendants’ failure and/or refusal to pay Plaintiff minimum 

wage for all hours worked during each and every workweek of his employment with 

Defendants, Defendants violated ARS § 23-363.

95. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

Arizona minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated the Arizona Wage Act.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 20 of 22
-21-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

96. As such, the full applicable Arizona minimum wage is owed to Plaintiff for 

each and every workweek that Plaintiff worked for Defendants.

97. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its 

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full minimum wage for time spent working for Defendants 

would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were aware of the Arizona minimum 

wage requirements during Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes 

a willful violation of the Arizona Wage Act.

98. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the Arizona Wage Act by 

not paying Plaintiff a wage equal to or greater than minimum wage.

99. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the difference between 

wages paid and Arizona’s minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an 

additional amount equal to twice the unpaid wages as liquidated damages, together with 

interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brent Hanke, individually, respectfully requests that this 

Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Vino Pinot Dining, LLC, 

Anastasios Tirkas, and David Freedman for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an amount equal to twice the unpaid wages as liquidated damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any 

additional relief this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 21 of 22
-22-

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

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road | Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 2015.

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II 

Clifford P. Bendau, II

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01873-SMM Document 1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 22 of 22