First Amended 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

LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 301

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Sturgiss; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Arizona Public Services Company, an

Arizona corporation; 

Case No.: CV-15-02567-PHX-SRB 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff William Sturgiss, for his First Amended Complaint against Defendant, 

alleges as follows1:

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).

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

 

1

The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are identical to those of the original Complaint, the only change is 

substituting Arizona Public Services Company for Pinnacle West Capital Corporation as the Defendant.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 11
First Amended 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

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. Plaintiff brings 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. Plaintiff seeks 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.

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 

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 11
First Amended 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

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, Plaintiff was a resident of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

10. At all times material hereto, Arizona Public Service Company was 

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

County, Arizona.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. Arizona Public Service Company is the largest electric utility in Arizona. 

12. Plaintiff was hired Plaintiff in June of 1985.

13. Plaintiff is currently a maintenance technician and a training coordinator.

14. Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities include maintenance, testing, and 

repair of plant components. 

15. Arizona Public Service Company compensates Plaintiff at an hourly rate of 

$45.35 per hour. 

16. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Arizona Public Service 

Company. 

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

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 11
First Amended 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

18. At all relevant times, Defendant was and continues to be an “employer” as 

defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

19. At all times material to this action, Defendant 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).

20. Plaintiff engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce 

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

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

21. Plaintiff was involved in transacting business across state lines via interstate 

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

22. Plaintiff was involved in ordering or receiving goods from out-of-state 

suppliers.

23. Plaintiff was involved in handling the accounting or bookkeeping for the 

ordering or receiving of goods from out-of-state suppliers.

24. Plaintiff also handled credit card and check transactions that involved the 

interstate banking and finance systems.

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

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

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

regulations. 

27. During the years 2014 through 2015 Plaintiff was regularly working from 

Monday through Thursday, 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 11
First Amended 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

28. To complete all his tasks that Defendant required Plaintiff would not be able 

to leave work until about 9 p.m.

29. However Defendant would not credit Plaintiff for all his hours worked and 

would not pay him overtime for the hours he was forced to work after his shift ended.

30. Defendant would fill out Plaintiff’s time sheet and exclude all hours he 

worked after his regular shift ended. 

31. Plaintiff’s direct supervisors were aware of Plaintiff working almost every 

day after his shift was over.

32. Plaintiff complained to his supervisors about the lack of overtime pay during 

this period.

33. When Plaintiff complained about his overtime hours, he asked Defendant to 

review the gate logs. Defendant has a gate that employees can only enter by swiping their 

employee ID. Those gate logs would have the exact times in which Plaintiff arrived and 

left work each day. Defendants refused to do so. 

34. Management offered to settle the claim with him for a reduced amount, not 

the total overtime Plaintiff is owed only if Plaintiff would quash a complaint he made 

regarding a negative performance review. Plaintiff refused such a settlement and shortly 

thereafter, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by removing Plaintiff from the Training 

Coordinator position. 

35. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. 

36. Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

37. Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 11
First Amended 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

38. Plaintiff had no authority to exercise significant independent judgment on 

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

39. Defendants managed, supervised, and directed all aspects of Plaintiff’s job 

duties and responsibilities.

40. Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work directly related to 

the management or general business operations of Arizona Public Service Company or 

its’ customers. 

41. 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. 

42. Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

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

44. Plaintiff did not have an advanced degree and was not required to have one to 

perform the work.

45. The knowledge required to perform the work of regional account 

representative is not acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.

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

judgment. 

47. Plaintiff’s work did not require him to analyze, interpret, or make deductions 

from varying facts or circumstances.

48. Plaintiff’s duties were carried out in a mechanical and routine manner and he

had no authority to make independent decisions in performing those duties. 

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 11
First Amended 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

49. Plaintiff’s work did not require invention, imagination, originality, or talent.

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

interpretation. 

51. By improperly dictating to Plaintiff that he would not be paid for any 

overtime hours, Defendants are depriving Plaintiff upwards of twenty or more hours of 

overtime pay each and every week during the period from 2014 through 2015. 

52. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Phillips Dayes National Employment 

Law Firm to prosecute his claims against Defendants on his behalf and has agreed to pay 

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

COUNT ONE

OVERTIME VIOLATION—29 U.S.C. § 207

53. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 52 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

54. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked multiple hours of 

overtime per week.

55. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

56. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

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

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

accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 7 of 11
First Amended 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

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

Plaintiff has suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in accordance with 29 

U.S.C. § 207.

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

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

week.

60. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff, he is also 

entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

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

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

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

Plaintiff has been required to bring this action to recover his overtime compensation, and 

his statutory liquidated damages, and as the direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’

conduct, Plaintiff has incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his

favor against Defendants:

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

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

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

work for Defendants, in an amount proved at trial;

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 8 of 11
First Amended 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

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

overtime award;

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

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

d. Awarding 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;

e. Awarding 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

63. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 62 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

64. Plaintiff and Defendants have an overtime compensation dispute pending.

65. The Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief 

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

66. Plaintiff is entitled to declarations, and requests that the Court make 

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

Court:

a. Defendants employed Plaintiff.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 9 of 11
First Amended 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

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

of the FLSA.

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

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

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

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

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

g. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of overtime compensation not 

paid by Defendants at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff’s regular 

rate of pay.

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

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

incurred in prosecuting his claim.

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

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.

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his

favor against Defendants:

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 10 of 11
First Amended 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

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 Plaintiff his 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

Dated: March 11, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02567-SRB Document 16-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 11 of 11