amended complaint (class action) with exhibits

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

MICHAEL THOMPSON, et al. 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. __________________________________

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No. 2014 CA 007859 B Judge Michael OKeefe Next Court Date: March 13, 2015 Event: Initial Conference

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 32-

131.01 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. INTRODUCTION

1. 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

2

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. JURISDICTION 4. 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 32-

131.12. Further, all of the acts and omissions described herein occurred within the

District of Columbia; accordingly, venue is proper in this Court.

III. PARTIES

5. 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

3

action as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in

accordance with D.C. Code 32-1012(b).

7. In addition to the claims of the individually named plaintiffs, Mahera Copeland,

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. Plaintiffs Linita Eddy-Montgomery, Anita Calhoun, and Sylvie Tagba 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:

4

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. The District of Columbia Medicaid Program (DC Medicaid) is a federally

assisted, District-operated program designed to provide comprehensive medical care and

services to all eligible residents of the District of Columbia. The Department of Health

Care Finance (DHCF) is the District of Columbia agency responsible for administering

the DC Medicaid program and, to do so, enters into agreements with various health care

providers (DC Medicaid providers), including agencies that provide home health aide

services to eligible residents. These DC Medicaid providers must meet numerous

requirements set forth by DHCF, including record-keeping requirements.

11. 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 Health Management, Inc., is a for-profit corporation that employs

home care workers in the District of Columbia, is licensed as a DC Medicaid provider,

and has a place of business at 1707 L Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20036.

14. Defendant Robinson Abraham is the owner of Health Management, Inc.

Defendant Abraham, through Defendant Health Management, Inc., exerted control over

5

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. Defendant Nursing Enterprises, Inc., is a for-profit corporation that, at all times

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 Myrtle R. Gomez is the president, owner, and registered agent of

Nursing Enterprises, Inc. Defendant Gomez, through Defendant Nursing Enterprises,

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 5408 Colorado Avenue,

NW Washington D.C. 20011.

17. 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. STATEMENT OF FACTS

19. 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

6

prescribed; assisting with the patients self-administration of medication; changing

urinary drainage bags; reading and recording temperature, pulse, and respiration;

observing, recording and reporting the patients physical condition, behavior or

appearance; meal preparation in accordance with dietary guidelines; assisting the patient

with eating; keeping the patients living area in a condition that promotes the patients

health and comfort; and infection control.

20. 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 in-

service training each year in order to retain their license.

21. Defendants, as DC Medicaid providers, receive reimbursement for the care its

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. In February, an FBI investigation into Medicaid fraud by home care agencies in

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

7

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. Plaintiffs continued to workwithout any compensationduring the Medicaid

fraud investigation of the home care agencies.

25. 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

8

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

defendant home care agencies. As DC Medicaid providers, defendants are required to

keep and maintain accurate records that fully disclose the extent of the services rendered

9

to a beneficiary by a home health aide. Therefore, defendants have in their possession

records that demonstrate those workweeks in which a plaintiff has worked more than 40

hours per week without receiving overtime compensation for the hours above 40.

33. 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. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and superiority requirements of a class

action.

37. The classes identified in paragraphs 7 through 9 satisfy the numerosity standards.

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

individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of

consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods for the

fair and efficient adjudication of these claims.

40. The claims of the class representatives identified in paragraphs 7 through 9 are

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

adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each

member of each class who suffered harm to bring a separate action. In addition, the

maintenance of separate actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the

courts and could result in inconsistent adjudications, while a class action can determine,

with judicial economy, the rights of all class members.

Count 1 Failure to Pay the Living Wage

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 43 in their entirety and

restate them herein.

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. As set forth in paragraphs 26 through 28 above, at all times material herein,

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

entitled to a mandatory award of liquidated damages equal to treble their backpay

pursuant to D.C. Code 2-220.08 and D.C. Code 32-1303(4).

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

under D.C. Code 2-220.08 and 32-1308(b).

Count 2 Failure to Timely Pay



55. 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

the WPCL, D.C. Code 32-1301.

57. As set forth in paragraphs 23 through 25 above, defendants violated the WPCL by

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

members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.

59. 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



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.


under D.C. Code 32-1308(b).

Count 3 Failure to Provide Sick Leave



63. 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


D.C. Code 32-131.01(3).


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



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.


under D.C. Code 32-131.12(e).

16

Count 4 Failure to Pay Overtime under D.C. Minimum Wage Act



71. Plaintiffs have given their written consent to be party plaintiffs in this action

pursuant to D.C. Code 32-1012(b).

72. 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.


the DCMWA, D.C. Code 32-1002.

74. 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 32-

1003(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 32-

1003(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.


defendants violated D.C. Code 32-1003(c) by failing to pay plaintiffs an overtime

compensation rate of at least one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for every hour

worked in excess of 40.

17

77. The regulations for the DCMWA exempt individuals employed as a companion

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. Defendants violations of the DCMWA as alleged herein have been done in a

willful and bad faith manner.

79. 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

attorneys fees and costs under D.C. Code 32-1012(c).

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray as follows:

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

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the D.C. Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure,

plaintiffs hereby demand that their claims be tried before a jury.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gregory K. McGillivary

Gregory K. McGillivary D.C. Bar No. 411029 [email protected]

Sara L. Faulman D.C. Bar No. 496679 [email protected]

WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

32. Anita Calhoun

33. Simon Chi

34. Danita Clarke

35. Dahonon Cobbina

36. Ronisha Coker

37. Roxieanna Coker

38. Shelly Coker-Dixon

39. Mahera Copeland

40. Serena Corley

41. Diane Covington

42. Heather Covington

43. Marcia Cox-Wise

44. Ronda Croom Monroe

45. Maribel Cuevas de Arno

46. Cynthia Davis

47. Tonieka Davis

48. Debbie Diggs

49. Ronald Dixon

50. Arivi Dokou

51. Linita Eddy-Montgomery

52. Jacques Edimo

53. Deborah Edwards

54. Glory Egbujie

55. Mark Elliott

56. Victoria Eno

57. Batomen Fabo

58. Elizabeth Fagunwa

59. Mbayi Farlon

60. Pamela Feintangepse Wirten

61. Adoshia Flythe

62. Geoffrey Fongoh

63. Atem Fonkem

64. Jasmine Frank

65. Maria Frederick

66. Sonita Fullwood

67. Tori Givens

68. Joyce Glover

69. Sharette Graham

70. Katherine Gray

71. Ronald Grey

72. Leanda Hamilton

73. Celess Hardy

74. Tashameka Hinson

75. Misty Hopkins

76. Joanne Jack

77. Mariana Jalloh

78. Deborah Johnson

79. Angela Jones

80. David Jordan

81. Charlene Jordan-Wilson

82. Deborah Kale

83. Pidinnewe Kao

84. Portia Kelly

85. Ebony Kerns

86. Clint Kidido

87. Evelyn King

88. Solange Kutowu

89. Yudatade Kweka

90. Agnes Kwenthieu

91. Evelyne Lemnyuy

92. Vester Manyong

93. Kyera Marcelli

94. Nora Mbah

95. Constance McBride

96. Valarie McKenzie

97. Aude Flore Mekontchou

98. Asha Mohamed

99. Matthew Moore

100. 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

Home Care Complaint_Class Action_FINAL_1 27 15EX AThompson Plaintiff List 1-27-15Ex BHHA_Additional Redacted_1 26 15

amended complaint (class action) with exhibits

Documents