Complaint Page 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

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: 1-800-JOB-LAWS

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

DAVID DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 301

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carl Davis, individually; and Deborah 

Davis, individually, and as husband and 

wife

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

Sybrant Construction, LLC, an Arizona

corporation; Sandi Sybrant and John Doe

Sybrant, husband and wife

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Carl Davis and Deborah Davis, for their Complaint against Defendants,

allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. The Fair Labor Standards Act is designed to eliminate “labor conditions 

detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, 

efficiency and general well-being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). To achieve its goals, 

the FLSA sets minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for covered employers. See 

29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a).

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 13
Complaint Page 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

2. Employers must compensate employees for all work that employers permit 

employees to perform. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.11. In such cases, it is the responsibility of 

employers’ management to ensure that work is not performed if management does not 

desire for such work to be performed. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.13. Employers may not accept 

the benefits of employees performing work without compensating the employees for their 

work. Id.

3. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for unlawful failure to pay 

overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. (“FLSA”).

4. Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of requiring its employees to 

work well in excess of forty (40) hours per week without paying them time and a half for 

hours worked over forty (40) hours per week.

5. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount 

of liquidated damages, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees, and 

costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside within 

the State in which this District Court is located and because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to this matter occurred in this District.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 13
Complaint Page 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

8. The named Defendants, by virtue of their own acts and omissions or by 

virtue of the acts and omissions committed by one or more of their agents, employees or 

representatives, as described herein, have conducted business or caused events to occur 

within the District of Arizona and, more particularly, within Maricopa County, Arizona, 

as more particularly described herein so as to give rise to both subject matter and 

personal jurisdiction of this Court.

PARTIES

9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were residents of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

10. At all times material hereto, Sybrant Construction, LLC was incorporated 

in the State of Arizona with its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona.

11. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Sandi 

Sybrant, was and continues to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

12. John Doe Sybrant is Sandi Sybrant’s husband. Sandi and John Doe Sybrant 

have caused events to take place giving rise to this Complaint as to which their marital 

community is fully liable.

13. Upon information and belief, and consistent with the information available 

from the Arizona Corporation Commission, Defendant Sandi Sybrant is the owner of 

Sybrant Construction, LLC

14. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants, as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

15. The provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 207 of the FLSA apply to Defendants.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 13
Complaint Page 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

16. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was and continues to be an 

“employer” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

17. Each of the Defendants should be deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

FLSA including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. § 216.

18. Defendant Sandi Sybrant is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

FLSA, including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. §216.

19. All Defendants are co-equally liable for all matters.

20. Defendant Sandi Sybrant made all decisions on the daily activities of his

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

21. Defendant Sandi Sybrant makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

Sybrant Construction, LLC

22. Defendant Sandi Sybrant exerted financial control over Sybrant Construction, 

LLC

23. Defendant Sandi Sybrant exerted operative control over Sybrant 

Construction, LLC

24. Defendant Sandi Sybrant has the power to close Sybrant Construction, LLC

25. Defendant Sandi Sybrant has the power to hire and fire employees. 

26. Defendant Sandi Sybrant hired managerial employees. 

27. On information and belief, Defendant Sandi Sybrant maintained employment 

records. 

28. On information and belief, Defendant Sandi Sybrant dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 13
Complaint Page 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

29. Defendant Sandi Sybrant profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

30. At all times material to this action, each of the Defendants was and continues

to be an “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” 

as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

31. Plaintiffs engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce 

and are therefore individually covered under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§206(a), 

207(a)(1), 212(c).

32. Plaintiffs handled supplies, such as construction materials and tools, that 

originated out of state.

33. Plaintiffs were involved in transacting business across state lines via 

interstate telephone calls or the U. S. Mail which included taking new orders from 

customers.

34. Plaintiffs were involved in ordering or receiving goods from out-of-state 

suppliers.

35. Plaintiffs were involved in receiving of goods from out-of-state suppliers

by using the Defendants’ company credit card.

36. Plaintiffs also handled credit card transactions that involved the interstate 

banking and finance systems.

37. On information and belief, at all relevant times, the annual gross revenue of 

Defendants exceeded, and continues to exceed, $500,000.00.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 5 of 13
Complaint Page 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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

38. Sybrant Construction, LLC is a general contractor that provides construction 

management and design/build services to its clientele. Sybrant Construction, LLC 

provides all general construction services, design/build services, construction inspection 

services for building facilities, structures, damns, roads, and bridges. 

39. Sybrant Construction, LLC hired Plaintiff Carl Davis in June of 2015 as a 

general contracting controller. 

40. Plaintiff Carl Davis’s job duties and responsibilities included coordinating 

vendors and sub-contractors for construction jobs. Plaintiff Carl Davis would be 

responsible for ensuring management’s policies and procedures were being properly 

effectuated on the construction job sites. 

41. Sybrant Construction, LLC hired Plaintiff Deborah Davis in June of 2015 as 

a safety officer. 

42. Plaintiff Deborah Davis’s job duties and responsibilities included monitoring 

company safety policies on each construction job and reporting back to her manager if 

there were any possible safety issues on the construction jobs. Plaintiff would also 

perform safety inspections pursuant to Defendants’ policies. 

43. Sybrant Construction, LLC compensated Plaintiffs on a salary basis.

44. Plaintiffs’ pay did not fluctuate, it was a base salary.

45. Defendants withheld taxes out of Plaintiff’s paycheck pursuant to IRS 

regulations. 

46. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employee. 

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 6 of 13
Complaint Page 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

47. Each Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

48. Each Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

49. Each Plaintiff had no authority to exercise significant independent judgment 

on issues that affect the whole company when carrying out her job responsibilities.

50. Defendants managed, supervised, and directed all aspects of each Plaintiff’s 

job duties and responsibilities.

51. Each Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work directly 

related to the management or general business operations of Sybrant Construction, LLC

or its’ customers. 

52. Each Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work requiring 

advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning that was acquired by a prolonged 

course of specialized intellectual instruction. 

53. Each Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

54. Each Plaintiff did not perform work in a field of science or learning. 

55. Each Plaintiff did not have an advanced degree and was not required to have 

one to perform the work.

56. The knowledge required to perform the each Plaintiff’s job responsibilities is 

not acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.

57. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require consistent exercise of discretion and 

judgment. 

58. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require them to analyze, interpret, or make 

deductions from varying facts or circumstances.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 7 of 13
Complaint Page 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

59. Each Plaintiff’s duties were carried out in a mechanical and routine manner 

and they had no authority to make independent major decisions in performing those 

duties. 

60. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require invention, imagination, originality, or 

talent.

61. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require creative or original analysis and 

interpretation. 

62. Each Plaintiff’s regular schedule was five days per week. Plaintiffs were also 

required to work on the weekends once to twice per month. 

63. Plaintiffs would have to arrive at 5:00 am every day they were on the 

schedule and were not able to leave work until at least 3:30 p.m. each weekday that they

were on the schedule. 

64. Defendants also dictated that Plaintiffs would have to work one or two 

weekend days each month. 

65. Each and every week that Plaintiffs have worked their regular schedule, they 

have worked over forty hours in a week. 

66. By improperly classifying Plaintiffs as exempt employees, Defendants are 

depriving Plaintiffs upwards of twenty hours of overtime pay each and every week. 

67. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs overtime. 

68. Plaintiffs were not commissioned employees. 

69. Commissions did not consist of more than one half of Plaintiffs’ weekly 

earnings. 

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 8 of 13
Complaint Page 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

70. Plaintiffs have retained the law firm of Phillips Dayes National Employment 

Law Firm to prosecute their claims against Defendants on their behalf and have agreed to 

pay reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in the prosecution of this matter.

COUNT ONE

OVERTIME VIOLATION—29 U.S.C. § 207

71. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt paragraphs 1 through 70 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

72. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs regularly worked multiple hours of 

overtime per week.

73. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees.

74. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay 

Plaintiffs overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

75. On information and belief, Defendants further engaged in a widespread 

pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs in 

accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

76. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, 

Plaintiffs have suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in accordance with 

29 U.S.C. § 207.

77. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for an amount 

equal to one and one-half times their regular pay rate for each hour of overtime worked 

per week.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 9 of 13
Complaint Page 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

78. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to each Plaintiff, each 

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

79. On information and belief, Defendants’ conduct in failing to properly 

compensate Plaintiffs, in violation of the FLSA, was willful.

80. Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover their overtime compensation, 

and their statutory liquidated damages, and as the direct and foreseeable result of 

Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in their

favor against Defendants:

a. Awarding Plaintiffs overtime compensation in the amount due for all of 

their time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a pay rate 

equal to one and one-half times each Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay while 

at work for Defendants, in an amount proved at trial;

b. Awarding each Plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

overtime award;

c. Awarding each Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses 

of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

d. Awarding each Plaintiff pre-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, 

on all amounts awarded under subsections (a) and (b) above from the 

date of the payment due for that pay period until paid in full;

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 10 of 13
Complaint Page 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

e. Awarding each Plaintiff post-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, 

on all awards from the date of such award until paid in full; and

f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT TWO

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

81. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt paragraphs 1 through 80 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

82. Plaintiffs and Defendants have an overtime compensation dispute pending.

83. The Court has jurisdiction to hear each Plaintiff’s request for declaratory 

relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02.

84. Plaintiffs are entitled to declarations, and request that the Court make 

declarations as to the following matters and as to other matters deemed appropriate by the 

Court:

a. Defendants employed each Plaintiff.

b. Defendants are engaged in an enterprise covered by the overtime provisions 

of the FLSA.

c. Each Plaintiff individually is covered by the overtime provisions of the 

FLSA.

d. Each Plaintiff was not an exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA.

e. Defendants failed and refused to make payments of overtime compensation 

to each Plaintiff, in violation of the provisions of the FLSA.

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 11 of 13
Complaint Page 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

f. Defendants’ failures to pay overtime compensation to each Plaintiff were 

willful.

g. Each Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of overtime 

compensation not paid by Defendants at the rate of one and one-half times 

each Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay.

h. Each Plaintiff is entitled to an equal amount as liquidated damages.

i. Each Plaintiff is entitled to recover his costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee 

incurred in prosecuting his claim.

85. It is in the public interest to have these declarations of rights recorded as each

Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action serves the useful purposes of clarifying and 

settling the legal relations at issue, preventing future harm, and promoting the remedial 

purposes of the FLSA.

86. The declaratory judgment action further terminates and affords relief from 

uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered int heir

favor against Defendants:

a. Declaring, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201–02, that the acts and practices complained of herein are in 

violation of the overtime and wage provisions of the FLSA;

b. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs and 

expenses of the litigation pursuant to the FLSA; and

c. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 12 of 13
Complaint Page 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

Dated: November 3, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW 

FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-02210-NVW Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 13 of 13