PITTSBURGH – A former manager of a botanical business alleges her past employer and its higher-ups violated state and federal laws, when they failed to pay her proper overtime compensation, failed to reimburse her for expenses she incurred on behalf of the defendants and failed to pay her agreed-upon commissions.
Laura Harvey filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 20 versus Greenlight of PA, LLC (doing business as “PA Botanicals”), Kurt Worley and Jessica Goodwill
“For approximately seven years until on or around May 1, 2023, defendants employed plaintiff as a Manager. At all times relevant, defendants paid plaintiff an hourly wage. Beginning on or around Dec. 1, 2020, 5 days per week, would travel from defendant’s warehouse in Hermitage, Pennsylvania to defendant’s store in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to collect cash for deposits, conduct inventory, and work at the store as needed, and then return to defendants’ warehouse in Hermitage before continuing to work. Plaintiff spent around three total hours driving between the Hermitage warehouse and Pittsburgh store,” the suit says.
“From in or around February 2021 to in or around August 2022, plaintiff’s travel to defendants’ store in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was reduced to once per work week. Beginning in or around August 2022, plaintiff began traveling to defendants’ Pittsburgh store every other week. At the same time, plaintiff began traveling to defendants’ new store in Erie, Pennsylvania from the Hermitage warehouse and back again once every other week (i.e., during the weeks in which she did not visit the Pittsburgh store), which also took around three total hours of driving. Defendants did not pay plaintiff any wages for time spent traveling between defendants’ locations.”
The suit adds that excluding the time the plaintiff spent driving between defendants’ Hermitage warehouse and the Pittsburgh and Erie stores, plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week throughout her employment – and further, that accordingly, the plaintiff regularly worked three hours of overtime during each round trip between the defendants’ warehouse and one of its stores, for which the defendants paid her no compensation.
Moreover, beginning in or around September 2020, the suit continues, the defendants required the plaintiff to be on-call seven days per work week in the event an issue arose at one of its stores.
“Plaintiff spent around two hours per work week performing work during on-call hours, for which defendants paid her no compensation. As she worked such hours during work weeks in which she otherwise worked at least 40 hours, plaintiff’s hours working on-call were overtime hours. Accordingly, defendants failed to pay plaintiff at least one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours worked more than 40 hours in a work week. Moreover, defendants failed to reimburse plaintiff for the costs she incurred in traveling between defendants’ locations, including mileage and tolls. Furthermore, defendants agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of 2% on total monthly gross from stores beginning in August 2021, which defendants paid during the first three months,” the suit states.
“When defendants paid plaintiff her owed commissions, defendants failed to include the commission pay in plaintiff’s regular rate for purposes of calculating her overtime wages and, instead paid plaintiff an overtime rate of one and one-half times her base hourly rate. Accordingly, during the work weeks in which plaintiff earned commissions that defendants paid her, defendants failed to pay her one and one-half times the regular rate for overtime hours defendants recorded and paid. However, after a few commission payments, defendants ceased paying plaintiff her owed commissions. When plaintiff complained, defendant Worley brushed off plaintiff’s complaint and failed to provide a response. Thereafter, in or around April 2023, an investigator from the U.S. Department of Labor conducted an interview with plaintiff, to discuss plaintiff’s job duties and wages in response to a complaint initiated by another employee of defendants. Plaintiff complied with the investigation and answered the investigator’s questions.”
Shortly thereafter, on or around April 28, 2023, the defendants terminated the plaintiff, allegedly for time clock fraud – when in reality, the suit claims, the defendants fired the plaintiff in retaliation for her cooperation with the Department of Labor’s investigation.
For multiple counts of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Defendants are to compensate, reimburse, and make Plaintiff whole for any and all pay he would have received had it not been for Defendants’ illegal actions, including but not limited to past lost earnings;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded liquidated damages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 100% of the actual damages in this case;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded liquidated damages under the PWPCL in an amount equal to 25% of the actual damages in this case;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded liquidated damages and/or punitive damages in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish defendants for their willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter defendants or other employers from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded damages for emotional distress and/or pain and suffering (as permitted by applicable law) and is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable law;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• Plaintiff’s claims are to receive a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Matthew D. Miller, Richard S. Swartz and Justin L. Swidler of Swartz Swidler in Haddonfield, N.J.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-012223
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com