Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CIVIL DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.
)
1707 L Street NW, Suite 900
)
Washington, D.C., 20036
)
)
ROBINSON ABRAHAM
)
911 Tanley Road
)
Silver Spring, MD 20904
)
)
NURSING ENTERPRISES, INC.
)
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, #250
)
Washington, D.C. 20016
)
)
MYRTLE R. GOMEZ
)
5408 Colorado Avenue, NW
)
Washington, D.C., 20011
)
)
VIZION ONE, INC.
)
6856 Eastern Avenue NW, Suite 350
)
Washington, D.C., 20012
)
)
VENISIA KITWARA
)
2707 St. Josephs Drive, Apt. 51P
)
Bowie, MD 20721
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )
MICHAEL THOMPSON, et al.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by District of Columbia home care
agencies, and by and through their counsel, the law firm of Woodley & McGillivary LLP,
file this class action against their employers, the defendants, asserting violations of the
D.C. Living Wage Act of 2006, D.C. Code 2-220.01 et seq., the D.C. Wage Payment
and Collection Act, D.C. Code 32-1301 et seq., and the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave
Act of 2008 and Earned Sick and Safe Leave Amendment Act of 2013, D.C. Code 32131.01 et seq.. Plaintiffs also file a collective action asserting violations of the overtime
provisions of the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code 32-1001 et seq. As explained
below, the defendants have, for years, flagrantly violated these basic wage and hour
protections for workers set forth in laws enacted by the District of Columbia, and
defendants have lined their pockets with the money owed the plaintiffs and to the
detriment and expense of the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs seek as a remedy back pay,
liquidated damages, and all other relief available to them under the law, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated home health aides employed by defendants.
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are skilled and trained employees who are certified to provide in-home
care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Plaintiffs perform essential work
with low-income Medicaid patientswork that includes the provision of basic medical
care and counselingwhich allows those patients to remain in their own homes and
communities, rather than in nursing homes or other long-term care institutions. The
hands-on care provided by plaintiffs on a daily basis allows these patients to continue to
live at home and with dignity, without the added cost to the District of Columbia of
institutionalized care.
2.
The District of Columbia Council has enacted laws intended to protect workers
such as the plaintiffs. Those protections include a living wage for employees of
government contractors, the requirement that wages be paid on a timely basis, that
workers receive paid sick leave, and that workers receive overtime pay when working
over 40 hours a week.
3.
Defendants, however, have repeatedly and blatantly flouted the laws and
regulations of the District of Columbia designed to protect workers. For example, for
years the defendants have deprived the plaintiffs of the receipt of a living wage, of timely
pay, of their ability to use guaranteed paid sick leave, and of the overtime pay they are
entitled to receive for all hours worked over forty per week.
II.
4.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to D.C. Code 11-921, D.C.
Code 2-220.08, D.C. Code 32-1012, D.C. Code 32-1308, and D.C. Code 32131.12. Further, all of the acts and omissions described herein occurred within the
District of Columbia; accordingly, venue is proper in this Court.
III.
5.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs are, and at all time material herein have been, home health aides
(HHAs) employed in the District of Columbia by one or more of the defendant home
care agencies.
6.
All plaintiffs have given their written consent to be party plaintiffs in this action
pursuant to D.C. Code 32-1012(b). A listing of the 161 plaintiffs currently in the case is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. This list contains the names of the 149 plaintiffs who
initially filed their consent forms with the Complaint on December 11, 2014, as well as
those plaintiffs who are filing their consent forms along with this Amended Complaint.
The additional written consents are appended to this Complaint in Exhibit B. These
written consent forms set forth each plaintiffs name and address. Plaintiffs bring this
action as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in
accordance with D.C. Code 32-1012(b).
7.
Misty Hopkins, and Shannon Williams bring Counts 1, 2, and 3 as a class action pursuant
to D.C. Super Ct. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the
following class:
a. All home health aides employed by defendant Health Management, Inc.
since December 2011, who cared for DC Medicaid clients, and who were
not paid the living wage, who were not timely paid for all work time or
who on some occasions were not paid at all, and/or who did not receive
paid sick leave.
8.
Plaintiffs Lisa Nibblins, Valencia Pugh, Serena Corley, and Michael Thompson
bring Counts 1, 2, and 3 as a class action pursuant to D.C. Super Ct. R. Civ. P. 23 on
behalf of themselves and as representatives of the following class:
a. All home health aides employed by defendant Nursing Enterprises, Inc.
since December 2011, who cared for DC Medicaid clients, and who were
not paid the living wage, who were not timely paid for all work time or
who on some occasions were not paid at all, and/or who did not receive
paid sick leave.
9.
Counts 1, 2, and 3 as a class action pursuant to D.C. Super Ct. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of the following class:
a. All home health aides employed by defendant Vizion One, Inc. since
December 2011, who cared for DC Medicaid clients, and who were not
paid the living wage, who were not timely paid for all work time or who
on some occasions were not paid at all, and/or who did not receive paid
sick leave.
10.
Defendants, at all times material herein, are or have been licensed home care
agencies, and the owners of such agencies, who provide home health care services to
eligible residents in the District of Columbia. These agencies are DC Medicaid providers.
12.
Defendants, at all time material herein, have maintained lists of employees, and
are aware of which plaintiffs have been employed by each respective home care agency.
13.
Defendant Abraham, through Defendant Health Management, Inc., exerted control over
plaintiffs sufficient to establish that he employed plaintiffs and is thus subject to liability
under the relevant laws. His address is 911 Tanley Road, Silver Spring, MD 20904.
15.
material herein, has employed home care workers in the District of Columbia, was
licensed as a DC Medicaid provider, and has a place of business at 5101 Wisconsin
Avenue NW, #250, Washington, D.C. 20016.
16.
Defendant Vizion One, Inc., is a for-profit corporation that, at all times material
herein, has employed home care workers in the District of Columbia and was licensed as
a DC Medicaid provider. Vizion One has a place of business at 6856 Eastern Avenue
NW, Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20012.
18.
Defendant Venisia Kitwara is the co-owner and vice president of Vizion One, Inc.
Defendant Kitwara, through Vizion One, Inc., exerted control over plaintiffs sufficient to
establish that she employed plaintiffs and is thus subject to liability under the relevant
laws. Her address is 2707 St. Josephs Drive, Apt. 51P, Bowie, MD 20721.
III.
19.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs duties as home health aides in caring for DC Medicaid patients include
but are not limited to: basic personal care including bathing, grooming, and assistance
with toileting and basin use; assisting the patient with transfer, walking, and exercise as
Plaintiffs are trained and certified health care workers. They must complete 75
hours of classroom and supervised practical training and pass a competency exam in
order to receive their certification. Plaintiffs must attend continuing education or inservice training each year in order to retain their license.
21.
aides provide from the District of Columbia. At all times material herein, defendants are
and have been recipients of government contracts or assistance in the amount of $100,000
or more.
22.
the District of Columbia led to the arrests of 20 people. The investigation uncovered $78
million in Medicaid fraud. Ultimately, 13 agencies were suspended by DCHF for
potentially fraudulent Medicaid transactions.
23.
During the fraud investigation of the home care agencies, defendants Nursing
Enterprises and Vizion One instructed plaintiffs to continue to work their regular hours
without being paidin direct violation of the law. For example, Plaintiff Deborah
Edwards, a home health aide employed by defendant Nursing Enterprises, was forced to
work without pay; plaintiff Milosha Stephens, a home health aide employed by Vizion
One, was forced to work without pay; and plaintiff Doris Pickeral, a home health aide
employed by defendant Nursing Enterprises, was forced to work without pay.
24.
Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs in a timely manner, if they paid them at all, for
their work during this time, delaying payment for weeks or even months. Moreover,
defendants have still not fully compensated plaintiffs for the hours they worked without
pay during the Medicaid fraud investigation of the home care agencies.
26.
The Living Wage Act of 2006 requires government contractors, including home
care agencies such as defendants, to pay a living wage to all employees. In 2014, the
living wage was set by the D.C. Council at $13.60 per hour for employees of D.C.
government contractors. In 2013, the living wage was $13.40 per hour. In 2012 and 2011,
the living wage was $12.50 per hour.
27.
For years, defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs the living wage. For example, at
all times material herein, plaintiff Lisa Nibblins was paid only $10.96 per hour as a home
health aide for Nursing Enterprises; plaintiff Charlene Wilson-Jordan was paid only
$10.50 per hour as a home health aide for Vizion One; plaintiff Tonieka Davis was paid
only $10.50 per hour as a home health aide for HMI.
28.
None of the defendants have provided plaintiffs with backpay for the hours
plaintiffs worked and for which they were compensated at a rate less than the living
wage.
29.
The D.C. Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 and Earned Sick and Safe
Leave Amendment Act of 2013 requires all District of Columbia employers to provide a
certain number of hours of paid sick leave to all employees. Employers with more than
100 employees must provide each employee with at least one hour of paid sick leave for
every 37 hours worked, not to exceed seven days per year. Employers with at least 25 but
less than 100 employees must provide each employee with at least one hour of paid sick
leave for every 43 hours worked, not to exceed five days per year. Employees with fewer
than 25 employees must provide not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 87
hours worked, not to exceed three days per year. Employers are also required to post
notice of the sick leave provisions in a conspicuous place.
30.
At all times material herein, plaintiffs have not been given paid sick leave hours
in violation of the law. For example, plaintiff Chenille Spencer, a home health aide who
was employed by defendants Nursing Enterprises, did not receive paid sick leave;
plaintiff Shannon Williams, a home health aide employed by HMI, did not receive paid
sick leave; plaintiff Ebony Kerns, a home health aide who was employed by Vizion One,
did not receive paid sick leave; and plaintiff Mahera Copeland, a home health aide
employed by HMI, was not paid when she had to miss work due to illness.
31.
Under the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, employees such as the plaintiffs
individuals who are employed by third-party home care agencies and not employed
directly by the DC Medicaid recipients or their familiesare entitled to overtime
compensation at a rate of not less than one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for
the hours of work they perform above forty in any given workweek.
32.
At all times material herein, plaintiffs have worked over 40 hours per week for
During the times that plaintiffs have worked in excess of 40 hours in a week,
defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with the rights and protections provided under the
D.C. Minimum Wage Act, and did not pay overtime compensation for those hours in
excess of 40 worked in a week. For example, plaintiff Linita Eddy-Montgomery, a home
health aide who was employed by defendant Vizion One, worked 56 hours per week, but
did not receive time and one-half overtime pay for the hours she worked over 40. Plaintiff
Misty Hopkins, a home health aide who was employed by defendant HMI, worked 64
hours every other week, but did not receive time and one-half overtime pay for the hours
she worked over 40. Plaintiff Thomasina Burns, a home health aide who was employed
by defendant Nursing Enterprises, worked 48 hours per week, but did not receive time
and one-half overtime pay for the hours she worked over 40.
34.
As a result of defendants failure to properly pay the living wage, failure to timely
pay, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide paid sick leave, as is required by law,
plaintiffs have suffered significant damages, and some have struggled to pay their rents,
make their car payments, and pay their mortgages.
IV.
35.
Plaintiffs bring Counts 1, 2, and 3, set forth herein alleging a failure to pay the
living wage, a failure to timely pay, and a failure to provide paid sick leave, as a class
action pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of themselves and respective
classes of similarly situated individuals.
10
36.
Plaintiffs living wage, failure to timely pay, and sick leave claims satisfy the
On information and belief, each class is believed to number in the hundreds. As a result,
joinder of all class members in a single action is impractical. Class members may be
informed of this class action through direct mail.
38.
There are questions of fact and law common to the each class that predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions of law and fact
common to each class arising from defendants actions include, without limitation, the
following:
a. Whether defendants paid plaintiffs the living wage as required by law;
b. Whether defendants timely paid plaintiffs for all hours worked;
c. Whether defendants provided plaintiffs with paid sick leave, and notice of
their rights to such leave, as required by law.
39.
The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting only
typical of those of their respective class in that class members have been employed in
similar positions as the class representatives and were subject to the same or similar
unlawful practices as the class representatives.
11
41.
A class action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of
plaintiffs living wage, failure to timely pay, and sick leave claims. Defendants have
acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the corresponding class. The
presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of
inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for
defendants, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect
their interests.
42.
The class representatives are adequate representatives of the class because they
are members of the class and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the
members of the class they seek to represent. The interests of the members of the class
will be fairly and adequately protected by the class representatives and their undersigned
counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex wage and hour,
employment, and class action lawsuits.
43.
Maintenance of this action as a class action is a fair and efficient method for the
12
45.
At all times material herein, defendants were recipients of contracts in the amount
of $100,000 or more from the District of Columbia government, and as such fell under
the purview of the D.C. Living Wage Act of 2006 (LWA), D.C. Code 2-220.01 et
seq.
46.
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and class members were affiliated
employees employed by defendants pursuant to the LWA, D.C. Code 2-220.02, and as
such are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the LWA.
47.
defendants violated the LWA by failing to pay plaintiffs and class members the living
wage.
48.
At all times material herein, defendants violated the LWA by failing to provide
plaintiffs and class member with notice of the living wage hourly rate and the
requirements of the LWA, as required by D.C. Code 2-220.06.
49.
At all times material herein, defendants violated the LWA by failing to provide
plaintiffs and class members with compensation at the living wage hourly rate, as
required by D.C. Code 2-220.06.
50.
As a result of the defendants violations of the LWA, plaintiffs and class member
are entitled to backpay damages in the amount of their unpaid compensation representing
the difference between what they were paid and what the law required they be paid as a
living wage.
51.
In addition to the backpay owed under the LWA, plaintiffs and class members are
13
52.
The employment and work records for the plaintiffs and class member are in the
exclusive possession, custody, and control of the defendants, and plaintiffs are unable to
state at this time the exact amount owed to each of them. Defendants are under a duty
imposed by D.C. Code 2-220.07 to retain all payroll records for employees subject to
the LWA, as well as any other relevant employment records from which the amounts of
the defendants liability can be ascertained.
53.
Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and class members were employees
within the meaning of the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), D.C.
Code 32-1301 et seq., and as such are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits
provided under the WPCL.
56.
At all times material herein, defendants were employers within the meaning of
failing to timely pay those plaintiffs and class members who worked without pay, and
such violations occurred generally during the time period of the disruption caused by the
freeze on Medicaid reimbursement payments from the D.C. Department of Health Care
Finance.
14
58.
Defendants failure to comply with the WPCL caused the plaintiffs and class
Due to defendants WPCL violation, the plaintiffs and class members suffered
injuries, including monetary damages, and are entitled to compensation in the form of
their lost wages and a mandatory award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to
treble their unpaid wages, pursuant to D.C. Code 32-1303(4) and 32-1308(a).
60.
The employment and work records for the plaintiffs and class members are in the
exclusive possession, custody, and control of the defendants, and plaintiffs are unable to
state at this time the exact amount owed to each of them. Defendants are under a duty
imposed by D.C. Code 32-1008(a) to retain all payroll records for employees, as well as
any other relevant employment records from which the amounts of the defendants
liability can be ascertained.
61.
Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and class members were employees
within the meaning of D.C. Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 and the Earned
Sick and Safe Leave Amendment Act of 2013 (D.C. Paid Sick Leave laws), D.C. Code
32-131.01 et seq., and as such are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits
provided under these laws.
15
64.
At all times material herein, defendants were employers within the meaning of
defendants failed to provide plaintiffs and class members with hours of accrued paid sick
leave as is required by the D.C. Paid Sick Leave laws, D.C. Code 32-131.02.
66.
At all times material herein, defendants violated the D.C. Paid Sick Leave laws by
failing to provide plaintiffs and class members with notice of their right to paid sick leave
and the requirements of the law, as is required by D.C. Code 32-131.09.
67.
As a result of defendants violation of the D.C. Paid Sick Leave laws, the
plaintiffs and class members suffered injuries, including monetary damages, and are
entitled to their back pay for lost wages caused by the defendants violations, and
compensatory damages or punitive damages, including at least $500 for every day an
employee who was denied access to paid leave was required to work, pursuant to D.C.
Code 32-131.12(e).
68.
The employment and work records for the plaintiffs and class members are in the
exclusive possession, custody, and control of the defendants, and plaintiffs are unable to
state at this time the exact amount owed to each of them. Defendants are under a duty
imposed by D.C. Code 32-131.10b to make, keep, and preserve records documenting
hours worked and paid leave taken by employees, as well as any other relevant
employment records from which the amounts of the defendants liability can be
ascertained.
69.
Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs
16
Plaintiffs have given their written consent to be party plaintiffs in this action
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and all other who are similarly situated
were employees within the meaning of the D.C. Minimum Wage Act (DCMWA),
D.C. Code 32-1001 et seq., and as such, are entitled to the rights, protections, and
benefits provided under the DCMWA.
73.
At all times material herein, defendants were employers within the meaning of
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and all others who were similarly situated
were employed in the District of Columbia within the meaning of D.C. Code 321003(b).
75.
At all times material herein, plaintiffs and all others who were similarly situated
worked in excess of the hourly levels specified by the DCMWA, D.C. Code 321003(c). As a result, at all times material herein, these plaintiffs have been entitled to
overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one-and-a-half times their regular rate of
pay for the hours of overtime they have worked.
76.
17
77.
for the aged or infirm from the overtime provisions. D.C. Code 13-1004; 7 DCMR
902.5(b). Plaintiffs and all others who were similarly situated are not covered by this
exemption because, among other reasons, they are employed by third-party agenciesthe
defendantsrather than providing services in the private homes of their employer.
78.
As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the DCMWA, plaintiffs and all
others who were similarly situated are owed the overtime compensation which has been
withheld by defendants from the plaintiffs who worked more than 40 hours per week for
which defendants are liable pursuant to D.C. Code 32-1012(a), together with an
additional amount as liquidated damages, as well as interest.
80.
The employment and work records for the plaintiffs and all others who were
similarly situated are in the exclusive possession, custody, and control of the defendants,
and plaintiffs are unable to state at this time the exact amount owed to each of them.
Defendants are under a duty imposed by D.C. Code 32-1008(a) to make, keep, and
preserve plaintiffs' rates of pay and amount paid each pay period to each employee, as
well as any other relevant employment records from which the amounts of the
defendants liability can be ascertained.
81.
Plaintiffs and all others who were similarly situated are entitled to recover
18
(a) That the Court enter judgment declaring that the defendants have willfully
and wrongfully violated their statutory obligations, and deprived each of the plaintiffs,
and all others who are similarly situated, of his or her rights, privileges, and protections,
as alleged herein;
(b) That the Court order a complete and accurate accounting of all the
compensation to which the plaintiffs, all others who are similarly situated, and class
members are entitled, for violations of the D.C. Living Wage Act; D.C. Wage Payment
and Collection Law; D.C. paid sick leave laws; and D.C. Minimum Wage Act;
(c) That the Court award plaintiffs and class members monetary liquidated
damages equal to treble their unpaid compensation for violations of the D.C. Living
Wage Act and D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law;
(d) That the Court award plaintiffs who worked overtime hours, and all others
who are similarly situated, monetary liquidated damages equal to their unpaid
compensation for the willful violations of the D.C. Minimum Wage Act;
(e) That the Court award plaintiffs and class members compensatory and punitive
damages for defendants failure to comply with the paid sick leave requirements of the
District of Columbia;
(f) That the Court award plaintiffs, all others who are similarly situated, and class
members interest on their unpaid compensation;
(g) That the Court award plaintiffs, all others who are similarly situated, and class
members their reasonable attorneys fees to be paid by the defendants, and the costs and
disbursements of this action; and
(h) That the Court grant such other relief as may be just and proper.
19
20
Exhibit A
1. Juliet Abrams
2. Bency Acha
3. Emeline Achidi
4. Adebayo Adeniyi
5. Gladys Adeniyi
6. Taiwo Adenuga
7. Gideon Adewale
8. Mercy Adoghe
9. Akouvi Agbenouvon
10. Piyalo Agouzou
11. Doris Ahaghotu
12. Tunae Akinyele
13. Maurine Akwi
14. Leyla Ali
15. Sabrina Armstrong
16. Kehinde Arogundade
17. Francoline Asongani
18. Babatunde Ayanda
19. Azinwi Ayanji
20. Kathy Bailey
21. Patricia Ball
22. Barbara Bell
23. Lilian Bine
24. Nelson Bisong
25. Deborah Boseman
26. Ladon Boyd
27. Constance Bradley
28. Rose Brown
29. Carol Burney
30. Thomasina Burns
31. Patricia Bynum
Michelle Moore
101.
Agathe Mouto
102.
Marian Mua
103.
Florence Mukum
104.
Nahjela Muma
105.
Cornelius Neba
106.
Zephirine Neba
107.
Lynford Newland
108.
Pamela Nfor
109.
Odette Ngeumon
110.
Eric Ngnintedem
111.
Evelyn Ngomenang
112.
Joyce Nibblins
113.
Lisa Nibblins
114.
Marie Nlaah
115.
Chinwe Ogbonnata
116.
Janie Payne
117.
Donnice Philiips
118.
Phyllis Phillips
119.
Doris Pickeral
120.
Antwan Pixley
121.
Valencia Pugh
122.
Lynette Reece
123.
Tanya Robinson
124.
Blasima Rosario
125.
Issimatou Sadou
126.
Jean-Pierre Samba
127.
Pamela Sanvee
128.
Phyllis Scott
129.
Eula Sheffey
130.
Diane Smith
131.
Chenille Spencer
132.
Milosha Stephens
133.
Teresa Stewart
134.
Sallie Stone
135.
Angela Stubbs
136.
Sylvie Tagba
137.
Abraham Takoh
138.
Delphine Takoh
139.
Denilson Takoh
140.
Milton Tanjong
141.
Elizabeth Tebio
142.
Faith Teghen
143.
Carolyn Thomas
144.
Michael Thompson
145.
Gladys Tiba
146.
Mattie Tibbs
147.
Marie Tientcheu
148.
Yolande Tontsop
149.
Hanna Tsedal
150.
Monday Udosen
151.
Tousha Wade
152.
Robin Wallace
153.
Agwoh Werengie
154.
Helen Werengie
155.
Precilia Werengie
156.
Evelyn Whitner
157.
Shannon Williams
158.
Shantel Williams
159.
Jacklyn Wilson
160.
Kenneth Wirlen
161.
Helen Woldemariam
Exhibit B