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

SEAN DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 301

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maira Maldonado; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Fidelity Care Home, Inc., an Arizona 

Corporation; Roger Raymond and Liz 

Raymond

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Maira Maldonado, for her Complaint against Defendants, alleges 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 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 14
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. 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.

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 14
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 Pima 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 Pima County, 

Arizona. 

10. At all times material hereto, Fidelity Care Home, Inc. was incorporated in 

the State of Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona.

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

Raymond, was and continues to be a resident of Arizona. 

12. Liz Raymond is Roger Raymond’s wife. Roger and Liz Raymond have 

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

community is fully liable.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13. Fidelity Home Care Inc. operates assisted care facilities in Tucson, Arizona. 

Defendants’ patients included individuals with Alzheimer’s and other such ailments. 

14. Fidelity Care Home, Inc. hired Plaintiff in approximately July of 2014 as a 

caregiver. 

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 14
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

15. As a caregiver, Plaintiff’s responsibilities included medication 

administration, medication refills, patient care, patient file review, accompanying patients 

to doctor visits, cooking, cleaning, changing, dressing, and bathing of patients, and 

assisting patients with personal hygiene.

16. Fidelity Care Home, Inc. compensated Plaintiff at an hourly rate of $10 per 

hour.

17. Plaintiff’s regular schedule was to work seven days per week, each day she 

had a thirteen hour shift. 

18. Plaintiff consistently worked the schedule in the preceding paragraph and 

quite often she was required to work more hours than her regular schedule. 

19. Each week Plaintiff worked her regular schedule she worked over forty hours 

in a work week. 

20. Plaintiff was deprived of proper overtime compensation in two ways.

21. First, Defendants did not maintain a system that accurately recorded 

Plaintiff’s time. Plaintiff would fill out time sheets and turn them into Defendants but 

Defendants would alter those time sheets and pay her for fewer hours than she worked. 

22. This system allowed Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of at least ten hours of 

overtime each week she worked her full schedule.

23. Second, even for the hours Defendants did compensate Plaintiff for, 

Defendants would only compensate Plaintiff at her regular rate for those hours.

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 14
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

24. Defendants would not compensate Plaintiff at time and one half her regular 

hourly rate for hours worked above forty in a week, Defendants would pay Plaintiff her 

regular rate for all such hours.

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

from the Arizona Secretary of State, Defendants Roger and Liz Raymond were and are

the owners of Fidelity Care Home, Inc.

26. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Fidelity Care Home, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Defendant Roger Raymond is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

FLSA, including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. §216, and are co-equally liable with 

Fidelity Care Home, Inc. 

32. Defendant Liz Raymond is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. §216, and are co-equally liable with Fidelity 

Care Home, Inc. 

33. Defendant Roger Raymond made all decisions on the daily activities of their 

employees and makes all decisions regarding pay policies and exerted financial and 

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 14
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

operative control over Fidelity Care Home, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under 

the FLSA.

34. Defendant Liz Raymond made all decisions on the daily activities of their 

employees and makes all decisions regarding pay policies and exerted financial and 

operative control over Fidelity Care Home, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under 

the FLSA.

35. Defendant Roger Raymond had the power to close Fidelity Care Home, Inc.

36. Defendant Liz Raymond had the power to close Fidelity Care Home, Inc.

37. Defendant Roger Raymond had the power to hire and fire employees. 

38. Defendant Liz Raymond had the power to hire and fire employees. 

39. On information and belief, Defendant Roger Raymond hired managerial 

employees. 

40. On information and belief, Defendant Liz Raymond hired managerial 

employees. 

41. On information and belief, Defendant Roger Raymond maintained 

employment records. 

42. On information and belief, Defendant Liz Raymond maintained employment 

records. 

43. Defendant Roger Raymond profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

44. Defendant Liz Raymond profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 6 of 14
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

45. 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).

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

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

47. Plaintiff 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).

48. Plaintiff handled supplies, such as medicine, that originated out of state.

49. 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.

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

suppliers.

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

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

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

interstate banking and finance systems.

53. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. 

54. Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

55. Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

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

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

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 7 of 14
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

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

duties and responsibilities.

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

the management or general business operations of Anthem Senior Living, LLC or its’ 

customers. 

59. 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. 

60. Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

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

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

perform the work.

63. The knowledge required to perform the Plaintiff’s job responsibilities is not 

acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.

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

judgment. 

65. Plaintiff’s work did not require her to analyze, interpret, or make deductions 

from varying facts or circumstances.

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

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

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

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 8 of 14
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

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

interpretation. 

69. Defendants’ failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff at the 

rates and amounts required by the FLSA was willful and knowing.

70. Defendants are aware of the requirements under the FLSA to properly 

compensate employees.

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

her rights under the FLSA.

72. Defendants are aware of, and are able to comply with, all aspects of the 

FLSA. 

73. On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff confronted Roger and Liz Raymond and 

demanded her overtime wages and asked for all her time sheets. 

74. Plaintiff demanded her wages in person and via text message. 

75. On September 19, 2015 Defendants terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for 

asking for her overtime and time sheets. 

76. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Phillips Dayes Law Group PC to 

prosecute her claims against Defendants on her 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

77. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein.

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 9 of 14
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. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked multiple hours of 

overtime per week.

79. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

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

overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

81. 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.

82. 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.

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

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

week.

84. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff, she is also 

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

U.S.C. § 216(b).

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

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

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

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 10 of 14
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

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

her 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 her

favor against Defendants:

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

her 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;

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.

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 11 of 14
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

COUNT TWO

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

87. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the preceding paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein.

88. As set forth above, Plaintiffs were retaliated against for exercising their 

rights under the FLSA.

89. Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), it is unlawful to discharge or in 

any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed a 

complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to this 

chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings, or has served or is 

about to serve on an industry committee...”

90. Such conduct not only includes formal complaints with a court or the 

Department of Labor, but also informal complaints to an employer. See Williamson v. 

Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000).

91. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, lost past and 

future wages as a result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct.

92. As a result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other legal or 

equitable relief permitted under 29 U.S.C. § 216.

COUNT THREE

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

93. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts the preceding paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein. 

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 12 of 14
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

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

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

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

96. 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.

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 to maintain accurate time records in violation of the 

FLSA. 

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

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

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

h. 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.

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

j. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee 

incurred in prosecuting her claim.

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 13 of 14
Complaint Page 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

97. 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.

98. 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 her

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 Plaintiff her 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: December 22, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW 

FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Sean Davis

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:15-cv-00594-FRZ Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 14 of 14