-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

Piekarski & Brelsford, P.C.

2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460

Phoenix, AZ85016

Phone: (602) 956-1161

Email: chris@pb-lawfirm.com

Fax: (602) 956-1161

Christopher J. Piekarski, AB# 019251

Nathan J. Brelsford, AB# 024853

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas Wilkerson, Joshua Luna, 

Ryan Adverderada,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Expert Global Solutions, Inc., 

formerly known as APAC Customer 

Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation 

duly licensed to do business in the State 

of Arizona; 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 

Complaint

(Unpaid Wages; Unpaid Overtime)

Plaintiffs, Douglas Wilkerson, Joshua Luna, and Ryan Adverderada, by and 

through their undersigned counsel, submit the following claims:

 I.

 Parties Jurisdiction and Venue

1. Plaintiff Wilkerson is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. Plaintiff Luna is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

3. Plaintiff Adverderada is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 19
-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

4. Defendant Expert Global Solutions Inc., Inc. is a Delaware

Corporation duly licensed to do business within the State of Arizona with its 

principle place of business located within Phoenix, Arizona.

5. All relevant activities took place within the State of Arizona.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 201 

et seq., and 13 U.S.C. 1367 for supplemental state law claims.

7. This action arises out of Defendant’s violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Acts, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.. and A.R.S. 23-355.

8. Because the Defendant does business within the State of Arizona, 

personal jurisdiction is established.

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

 II.

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 (Plaintiff Wilkerson)

10. Plaintiff Douglas Wilkerson began his employment with the 

Defendant in July 2012as a “Customer Service Agent” at the Defendant’s call 

center located in Phoenix, Arizona and was paid on an hourly basis.

11. In 2013, Plaintiff Wilkerson was promoted to the position of “Team 

Leader” and remained in that position until his termination in August 2014.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 19
-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

12. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Wilkerson worked with a 

group of between twenty and thirty five other customer assistance agents who were 

assigned to his team.

13. Plaintiff Wilkerson was strictly prohibited from ever exercising 

independent decision making or discretion while performing his job duties as a 

Team Leader

14. Plaintiff Wilkerson was unable to hire, fire or otherwise discipline 

subordinate employees or customer service agents assigned to his team. 

15. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Wilkerson was paid on a 

salary basis for all hours that he worked including all hours worked in excess of 

forty per week.

16. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Wilkerson was paid an 

annual salary of $28,000.00 which translated to an hourly rate of $13.46 per hour.

17. As a Team Leader, Plaintiff Wilkerson typically worked between fifty 

five and sixty hours per week.

18. Plaintiff Wilkerson was never paid overtime for hours worked in 

excess of forty per week.

19. At all times during his employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff

Wilkerson remained “non-exempt” under the “Fair Labor Standards Act’, 29 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 19
-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

U.S.C. 201 et seq., (hereinafter “FLSA”) which mandated that he be paid time-andone-half of his hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (40) per week.

20. The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. 206(a).

21. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is an enterprise whose 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.

22. As such, the Defendant is a “covered enterprise” as defined by 29 

U.S.C. 203(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

23. The Plaintiff, by and through his employment, was engaged in 

commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. 

207(a)(1).

24. As such, the Plaintiff is a covered employee under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and entitled to one and one half his hourly rate of pay for hours

worked in excess of forty hours per week.

 III.

 UNPAID OVERTIME

(Plaintiff Wilkerson)

25. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

26. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Wilkerson virtually 

always worked in excess of forty hours per week.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 19
-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

27. Because Plaintiff Wilkerson remained a “non-exempt” employee 

while employed as a Team Leader, he was entitled to overtime pay at the rate of 

one-and-one-half times his hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours 

per week.

28. However, the Defendant never paid Plaintiff Wilkerson his overtime 

rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week

29. By the acts and conduct set forth above, the Defendant has violated 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et al..

30. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff Wilkerson has 

suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

31. Because Plaintiff Wilkerson’s claims can be liquidated, he is entitled 

to interest at the statutory rate. 

 IV.

 WILLFULNESS

 (Plaintiff Wilkerson)

 32. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 33. The Defendant was aware that all tasks and duties performed by 

Plaintiff Wilkerson were done in strict conformity with company policies and 

procedures.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 19
-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

 34. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Wilkerson lacked the authority to 

ever deviate from clearly defined company policies and without explicit 

authorization.

 35. The Defendant also knew that Plaintiff Wilkerson always worked 

significantly more than forty hours per week.

 36. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Wilkerson lacked the authority to 

hire and fire or otherwise discipline employees.

 37. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Wilkerson was never granted the

authority to exercise his discretion or engage in independent decision making while 

working as a Team Leader.

 38. Because Plaintiff Wilkerson lacked discretion and decision making 

abilities when performing his job duties, he did not qualify under any of the 

relevant exceptions to mandatory overtime pay as defined by Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq..

 39. The Defendant either knew or recklessly disregarded its obligation to 

pay mandatory overtime as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

201 et seq..

 40. Because the actions of the Defendant were willful and deliberate, the 

Plaintiff is entitled to all unpaid overtime pay due and owing him for the preceding 

three years. 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 6 of 19
-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

 V.

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 (Plaintiff Luna)

 41. Plaintiff Joshua Luna began his employment on November 1, 2013 

as a Customer Service Agent and was paid on an hourly basis.

 42. Plaintiff Luna was promoted to the position of “Team Leader” on 

August 29, 2014 and remained in that capacity until approximately May 7 2015. 

 43. Like Plaintiff Wilkerson, Plaintiff Luna worked at the same call 

center with twelve other customer assistance agents who were assigned to his team.

 44. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna was not allowed 

to exercise any independent decision making or discretion while performing his job 

duties.

 45. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna was not allowed 

to hire and fire or otherwise discipline employees. 

 46. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna was paid on a 

salary basis for all hours worked up to and in excess of forty hours per week.

 47. During his employment, Plaintiff Luna was paid an annual salary of 

$28,000.00 (Twenty Eight Thousand & 00/100).

 48. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna typically worked 

between fifty five and sixty hours per week.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 7 of 19
-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

 49. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna was never paid his 

overtime rate of one-and-one-half times his hourly rate for hours worked in excess 

of forty per week.

 50. At all times during his employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff Luna

remained “non-exempt” under the “Fair Labor Standards Act’, 29 U.S.C. 201 et 

seq., (hereinafter “FLSA”) which mandated that he be paid time-and-one-half of 

his hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (40) per week.

 51. Plaintiff Luna was an employee and subject to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act.

 52. The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. 206(a).

 53. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is an enterprise whose 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.

 54. As such, the Defendant is a “covered enterprise” as defined by 29 

U.S.C. 203(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 55. Plaintiff Luna, by and through his employment, was engaged in 

commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. 

207(a)(1).

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 8 of 19
-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

 56. As such, Plaintiff Luna is a covered employee under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and entitled to one and one half her hourly rate of pay for hours 

worked in excess of forty hours per week.

 VI.

 UNPAID OVERTIME

 (Plaintiff Luna)

 57. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 58. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Luna virtually always 

worked in excess of forty hours per week.

 59. Because Plaintiff Luna remained a “non-exempt” employee while 

employed as a Team Leader, he was entitled to overtime pay at the rate of one-andone-half times his hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per 

week.

 60. However, the Defendant never paid Plaintiff Luna his overtime rate of 

pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week

 61. By the acts and conduct set forth above, the Defendant has violated the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et al..

 62. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff Luna has suffered 

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 63. Because Plaintiff Luna’s claims can be liquidated, he is entitled to 

interest at the statutory rate. 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 9 of 19
-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

 VII.

 WILLFULNESS

 (Plaintiff Luna)

 64. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 65. The Defendant was aware that all tasks and duties performed by 

Plaintiff Luna were done in strict conformity with company policies and 

procedures.

 66. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Luna lacked the authority to ever

deviate from clearly defined company policies and without explicit authority.

 67. The Defendant also knew that Plaintiff Luna worked well in excess of 

forty hours per week.

 68. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Luna lacked the authority to hire 

and fire or otherwise discipline employees.

 69. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Luna lacked the authority to contract 

on the Defendant’s behalf or incur corporate debts.

 70. In addition, the Defendant failed to adequately maintain records as 

mandated under the FLSA.

 71. Because Plaintiff Luna lacked discretion and decision making abilities 

when performing his job duties, he did not qualify under any of the relevant 

exceptions to mandatory overtime pay as defined by Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. 201 et seq..

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 10 of 19
-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

 72. The Defendant either knew or recklessly disregarded its obligation to 

pay mandatory overtime as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

201 et seq..

 73. Because the actions of the Defendant were willful and deliberate, the 

Plaintiff is entitled to all unpaid overtime pay due and owing him for the preceding 

three years. 

 VIII.

UNPAID WAGES 

(Plaintiff Luna) 

 

 74. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 75. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of his employment, Plaintiff

Luna accumulated a significant number of PTO time.

 76. Despite his repeated requests, the Defendant continuously denied 

Plaintiff Luna use of his PTO time. 

 77. When Plaintiff Luna ended his employment in May 2015, the 

Defendant knew that he had earned a significant number of hours of PTO time.

 78. Nonetheless, the Defendant refused to ever compensate Plaintiff

Luna for his earned PTO time.

 79. The actions of the Defendant constitute a violation A.R.S. 23-355.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 11 of 19
-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

 80. Because the Defendant acted willfully and in the absence of a good 

faith dispute, Plaintiff Luna is entitled to treble damages of all unpaid PTO time 

per A.R.S. 23-355.

IX.

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 (Plaintiff Adverderada)

 81. Plaintiff Ryan Adverderada began his employment in April, 2014 as 

a Customer Service Agent and was paid on an hourly basis.

 82. Plaintiff Adverderada was promoted to the position of “Team 

Leader” on October 1, 2014 and remained in that capacity until April 9, 2015.

 83. Like Plaintiffs Wilkerson and Luna, Plaintiff Adverderada worked at 

the same call center with twelve other customer assistance agents who were 

assigned to his team.

 84. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada was not 

allowed to exercise any independent decision making or discretion while 

performing his job duties.

 85. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada was not 

allowed to hire and fire or otherwise discipline employees. 

 86. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada was paid 

on a salary basis for all hours worked up to and in excess of forty hours per week.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 12 of 19
-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

 87. During his employment, Plaintiff Adverderada was paid at the hourly 

rate of $13.46 per hour.

 88. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada typically 

worked between fifty five and sixty hours per week.

 89. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada was never 

paid his overtime rate of one-and-one-half times his hourly rate for hours worked 

in excess of forty per week.

 90. At all times during his employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff

Adverderada remained “non-exempt” under the “Fair Labor Standards Act’, 29 

U.S.C. 201 et seq., (hereinafter “FLSA”) which mandated that he be paid time-andone-half of his hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (40) per week.

 91. Plaintiff Adverderada was an employee and subject to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act.

 92. The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. 206(a).

 93. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is an enterprise whose 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.

 94. As such, the Defendant is a “covered enterprise” as defined by 29 

U.S.C. 203(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 13 of 19
-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

 95. Plaintiff Adverderada, by and through his employment, was engaged 

in commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by 29 

U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

 96. As such, Plaintiff Adverderada is a covered employee under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act and entitled to one and one half her hourly rate of pay for 

hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.

 97. The Defendant also offered various benefits to its employees such as 

paid time off and vacation time (“PTO time”).

 98. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Adverderada earned a 

significant number of hours of PTO time.

 99. When Plaintiff Adverderada attempted to use his PTO time, the 

Defendant consistently refused his requests.

 100. When Plaintiff Adverderada ended his employment, the Defendant

refused to compensate him for his accumulated PTO time.

 X.

 UNPAID OVERTIME

 (Plaintiff Adverderada)

 101. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by 

reference.

 102. While employed as a Team Leader, Plaintiff Adverderada virtually 

always worked in excess of forty hours per week..

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 14 of 19
-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

 103. Because Plaintiff Adverderada remained a “non-exempt” employee 

while employed as a Team Leader, he was entitled to overtime pay at the rate of 

one-and-one-half times his hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours 

per week.

 104. However, the Defendant never paid Plaintiff Alverdado his overtime 

rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week

 105. By the acts and conduct set forth above, the Defendant has violated 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et al..

 106. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff Adverderada has 

suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 107. Because Plaintiff Adverderado’s claims can be liquidated, he is 

entitled to interest at the statutory rate. 

 XI.

 WILLFULNESS

 (Plaintiff Adverderada)

 108. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 109. The Defendant was aware that all tasks and duties performed by 

Plaintiff Adverderada were done in strict conformity with company policies and 

procedures.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 15 of 19
-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

 110. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Adverderada lacked the authority 

to ever deviate from clearly defined company policies and without explicit 

authority.

 111. The Defendant also knew that Plaintiff Adverderada worked well in 

excess of forty hours per week.

 112. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Adverderada lacked the authority 

to hire and fire or otherwise discipline employees.

 113. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff Adverderada lacked the authority 

to contract on the Defendant’s behalf or incur corporate debts.

 114. In addition, the Defendant failed to adequately maintain records as 

mandated under the FLSA.

 115. Because Plaintiff Adverderada lacked discretion and decision 

making abilities when performing his job duties, he did not qualify under any of 

the relevant exceptions to mandatory overtime pay as defined by Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq..

 116. The Defendant either knew or recklessly disregarded its obligation 

to pay mandatory overtime as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. 201 et seq..

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 16 of 19
-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

 117. Because the actions of the Defendant were willful and deliberate, the 

Plaintiff is entitled to all unpaid overtime pay due and owing him for the preceding 

three years. 

 XII.

 UNPAID WAGES 

 (Plaintiff Adverderado)

 

 118. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 119. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of his employment, Plaintiff

Adverderada accumulated in excess of one hundred hours of PTO time.

 120. When Plaintiff Adverderada ended his employment in April 2015, 

the Defendant knew that he had earned a significant number of PTO hours.

 121. Nonetheless, the Defendant refused to ever compensate Plaintiff

Adverderada for his earned PTO time.

 122. The actions of the Defendant constitute a violation A.R.S. 23-355

 123. Because the Defendant acted willfully and in the absence of a good 

faith dispute, Plaintiff Adverderada is entitled to treble damages of all unpaid PTO 

time per A.R.S. 23-355.

 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 17 of 19
-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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wilkerson, Luna and Adverderada pray for judgment 

against the Defendant as follows:

1. For all unpaid overtime wages due and owing to them pursuant to the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. in an amount to be proven at trial;

2. For a finding that the Defendant’s actions were “willful” as defined by 

29 U.S.C. 201 et seq of the Fair Labor Standards Act and subject to a three year 

look back period.

3. For the Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in bringing this 

matter; and

4. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

5. Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States of America, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

IN ADDITION, Plaintiffs Luna and Adverderada pray for judgment against the 

Defendant as follows:

1. For all unpaid comp time and earned benefits due and owing them.

2. For treble damages for all unpaid comp time and earned benefits 

pursuant to A.R.S. 23-355

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 21st day of August, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 18 of 19
-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

Piekarski & Brelsford, P.C.

2633 E. Indian School Rd. suite 460

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

By: /s/ Christopher J. Piekarski

 Christopher J. Piekarski

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 1 Filed 08/24/15 Page 19 of 19