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

Jeff Chandler; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC., an Arizona

limited liability corporation; Ray Razack

and BiBi Razack, husband and wife

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jeff Chandler, for his 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).

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 

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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, Pro-Tech Transmissions, 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 Ray 

Razack, was and continues to be a resident of Mohave County, Arizona.

12. BiBi Razack is Ray Razack’s wife. Ray and BiBi Razack 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, Defendants Ray Razack and Bibi Razack

were and are the owners of Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendants.

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

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).

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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 Ray Razack is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

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

19. Defendant BiBi Razack is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

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

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

21. Defendant Ray Razack made all decisions on the daily activities of his

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

22. Defendant Ray Razack makes all decisions regarding pay policies for ProTech Transmissions, LLC.

23. Defendant BiBi Razack made all decisions on the daily activities of her

employees.

24. Defendant BiBi Razack makes all decisions regarding pay policies for ProTech Transmissions, LLC. 

25. Defendant Ray Razack exerted financial control over Pro-Tech 

Transmissions, LLC.

26. Defendant Ray Razack exerted operative control over Pro-Tech 

Transmissions, LLC. 

27. Defendant BiBi Razak exerted financial control over Pro-Tech 

Transmissions, LLC. 

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

28. Defendant BiBi Razak exerted operative control over Pro-Tech 

Transmissions, LLC. 

29. Defendant Ray Razack has the power to close Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC.

30. Defendant BiBi Razack has the power to close Pro-Tech Transmissions, 

LLC. 

31. Defendant Ray Razack has the power to hire and fire employees. 

32. Defendant BiBi Razack has the power to hire and fire employees. 

33. Defendant Ray Razack hired managerial employees. 

34. Defendant BiBi Razack hired managerial employees. 

35. On information and belief, Defendant Ray Razack maintained employment 

records. 

36. On information and belief, Defendant BiBi Razack maintained employment 

records. 

37. On information and belief, Defendant Ray Razack dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

38. On information and belief, Defendant BiBi Razack dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

39. Defendant Ray Razack profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

40. Defendant BiBi Razack profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

41. 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).

42. As a customer service technician, Plaintiff handled supplies, such as motor 

oil, that originated out of state.

43. As a customer service technician, Plaintiff handled supplies, such as car parts

that originated out of state.

44. Plaintiff’s uniform that he was required to wear moved in interstate 

commerce.

45. 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).

46. 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.

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

suppliers.

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

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

49. Plaintiff also handled credit card transactions that involved the interstate 

banking and finance systems.

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

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

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

51. Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC, is an automotive service and repair company. 

52. Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC, hired Plaintiff in May of 2015 as a customer 

service technician. 

53. Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities included meeting with potential 

customers, providing preliminary assessments of potential vehicular repairs, selling 

repairs and other automotive services such as brakes and oil changes, general janitorial 

tasks, ordering parts and materials for repairs and services, and completing sales on 

repairs and services.

54. Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC, compensated Plaintiff with a supposed hourly 

rate of $20.00 per hour. 

55. Plaintiff would only be paid for 30 hours each week, even when his worked 

in excess of 30 hours a week, he was always paid for 30 hours.

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

regulations. 

57. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. 

58. Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

59. Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

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

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

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

duties and responsibilities.

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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

the management or general business operations of Pro-Tech Transmissions, LLC, or its’ 

customers. 

63. 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. 

64. Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

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

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

perform the work.

67. The knowledge required to perform the work of customer service technician

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

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

judgment. 

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

from varying facts or circumstances.

70. 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. 

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

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

interpretation. 

73. Plaintiff’s regular schedule was six days per week.

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

74. Plaintiff would have to arrive at 7:30 am every day he was on the schedule 

and was not able to leave work until at least 6:00 p.m. each day that he was on the 

schedule. 

75. Each and every week that Plaintiff has worked his regular schedule, he has 

worked over forty hours in a week. 

76. By improperly classifying Plaintiff as an exempt employee, Defendants are 

depriving Plaintiff upwards of twenty or thirty hours of overtime pay each and every 

week. 

77. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime. 

78. Plaintiff was not a commissioned employee. 

79. Commissions did not consist of more than half of Plaintiff’s weekly earnings. 

80. 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

81. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 80 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

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

overtime per week.

83. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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

overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. 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.

88. 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).

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

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

90. 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:

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

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;

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

91. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 90 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

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

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

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

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

94. 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 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.

95. 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.

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 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

96. 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:

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: February 2, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL 

EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-00299-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 13 of 13