JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER GONGAWARE V Waitr

Case 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER §

GONGAWARE, Individually and on §
behalf of all others similarly situated § Civil Action No. ________________
§
Plaintiffs , §
§
v. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
§
WAITR HOLDINGS, INC. F/K/A §
LANDCADIA HOLDINGS, INC. §
and WAITR INCORPORATED, § COLLECTIVE ACTION
§ PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
Defendant. §
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jualeia Halley and Heather Gongaware bring this action individually and on behalf
of all current and former non-exempt delivery drivers (hereinafter “Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members”) who worked for Waitr Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. and Waitr
Incorporated 1 ( “Defendant” or “Waitr”), at any time from three years preceding the filing of this
Original Complaint through the final disposition of this matter, to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 206, 207 and 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.
I.
OVERVIEW
1. This is a collective action to recover unpaid minimum wage brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.
Lancadia Holdings, Inc. and Waitr Incorporated merged into the entity currently known as Waitr
1
Holdings Inc.
Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

2. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those persons who are current and
former delivery drivers who worked for Waitr throughout the United States at any time during their
relevant statutes of limitations through the final disposition of this matter and have not been paid
minimum wage in violation of federal law.
3. Waitr failed to reimburse its delivery drivers for the reasonable expenses of the
business use of their personal vehicles in performing deliveries for Waitr, such that Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members’ unreimbursed expenses caused their wages to fall below the federal minimum
wage during some or all workweeks.
4. The decision by Waitr not to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for
their reasonable expenses of the business use of their personal vehicles was neither reasonable nor in
good faith.
5. Waitr knowingly and deliberately failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members for their reasonable expenses of the business use of their personal vehicles.
6. Additionally, Waitr misclassified some of its delivery drivers as independent
contractors and failed to pay them minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime at the required
rate for hours worked over forty (40) in a single workweek.
7. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members therefore seek to recover all unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages owed under the FLSA as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
8. Plaintiffs also prays that all similarly situated workers (Putative Class Members) be
notified of the pendency of this action to apprise them of their rights and provide them an opportunity
to opt-in to this lawsuit.

II.
THE PARTIES
9. Plaintiff Jualeia Halley (“Halley”) was employed by Waitr during the relevant time
period. Plaintiff Halley did not receive minimum wage for all hours worked each week. 2
10. Plaintiff Heather Gongaware (“Gongaware”) was employed by Waitr during the
relevant time period. Plaintiff Gongaware did not receive minimum wage for all hours worked each
week and further did not receive overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty each week. 3
11. The Putative Class Members are those current and former employees who were
employed by Waitr anywhere in the United States at any time from February 27, 2016 through the
final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which
Plaintiffs Halley worked and was paid.
12. Defendant Waitr Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. and Waitr
Incorporated is a domestic for-profit Corporation, licensed to and doing business in the State of
Louisiana, and an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). It may be served with process through
its registered agent for service of process: C T Corporation System, 3867 Plaza Tower Drive,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816.
III.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
13. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
as this is an action arising under 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.
14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Waitr because it maintains its principal
business office in the State of Louisiana.
2 The written consent of Jualeia Halley is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
3 The written consent of Heather Gongaware is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

15. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana because this is a judicial district
where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
16. Specifically, Waitr conducts systematic and continuous business activities within the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
17. Venue is therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
IV.
FACTS
18. Waitr Incorporated and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. merged on November 15, 2018. The
surviving entity is now known as Waitr Holdings, Inc. (“Waitr”). 4
19. Waitr is a food delivery service that allows its patrons to utilize a mobile or desktop
app to order food and have it delivered from participating restaurants.
20. Waitr operates in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. 5
21. Plaintiffs Halley worked for Waitr as a driver from approximately April 2017 to July
2017.
22. Plaintiff Gongaware has worked and continues to work for Waitr as a driver since
approximately October of 2016 and was misclassified as an independent contractor.
23. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are (and were) non-exempt delivery drivers
employed by Waitr who were either classified as employees and received a fixed hourly wage and
gratuities (if any) or were classified as independent contractors and received a delivery fee and
gratuities (if any), and no other compensation.
4 http://investors.waitrapp.com/investor-resources/investor-faq.
5https://waitrapp.com/cities

24. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members incurred (and continue to incur) costs for
gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other
expenses (“automobile expenses”) while delivering food items for the primary benefit of Waitr.
25. Waitr does not reimburse its delivery drivers—Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members—for their automobile expenses.
26. This reimbursement policy applies to all of Waitr’s delivery drivers throughout the
United States.
27. During the applicable FLSA limitations period, the IRS standard business mileage
reimbursement rate has ranged between $.545 and $.575 per mile. 6
28. Plaintiff Halley drove, on average, approximately 469 miles each week.
29. Plaintiff Gongaware drove, on average, approximately 500 hundred miles each week.
30. Using the lowest IRS rate in effect during the period of Plaintiffs’ employment as a
reasonable approximation of Plaintiffs’ automobile expenses, every mile driven on the job decreased
Plaintiffs’ net wages by approximately $.55 per mile.
31. Considering Plaintiff Halley’s estimate of 469 miles driven each week, Waitr underpaid
Plaintiff Halley approximately $257.95 per week ($.55 x 469 average weekly miles).
32. Likewise, considering Plaintiff Gongaware’s estimate of 500 miles driven each week,
Waitr underpaid Plaintiff Gongaware approximately $275.00 per week (.55 x 500 average weekly
miles).
33. Waitr’s systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a
“kickback” to Waitr such that the hourly wages they pay to Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members
was and continues to be below the minimum wage. See 29 C.F.R. 531.35.
6 https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates.

34. Further, Waitr (mis)classified some of its drivers as independent contractors and paid
them only a delivery fee, in addition to gratuities received from Waitr’s patrons (if any), and did not
pay them the federally mandated minimum wage or overtime compensation.
35. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members would conduct their day-to-day activities
within designed parameters and in accordance with pre-determined operational plans coordinated by
Clean Harbors and/or its clients.
36. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) include
the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.
37. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) concern
work directly related to the management or general business operations of Waitr.
38. Waitr set all employment-related policies applicable to Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members.
39. Waitr maintained control over pricing and marketing and the online platform that
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members interact with.
40. Waitr had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members.
41. Waitr made all personnel and payroll decisions with respect to Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members, including but not limited to, the decision to pay Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members an hourly rate with no overtime pay.
42. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members did not employ their own workers.
43. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members relied on Waitr for their work.
44. Waitr did not permit Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to market any business
or services of their own.
45. The FLSA requires the payment of minimum wages and that overtime be paid at one
and one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay.

46. Because Waitr did not adequately reimburse Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members
for their business expenses, and did not pay those employees (mis)classified as independent
contractors any overtime compensation, Waitr’s pay policies and practices violated (and continue to
violate) the FLSA.
V.
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Collective Action Alleging FLSA Violations)
A. FLSA COVERAGE
47. All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
48. The FLSA Collective is defined as:
ALL CURRENT AND FORMER DELIVERY DRIVERS WHO WORKED FOR

WAITR HOLDINGS, INC., F/K/A LANDCADIA HOLDINGS, INC. AND WAITR
INCORPORATED, ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, AT ANY TIME
FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2016 THROUGH THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS
MATTER. (“FLSA Collective” or “FLSA Collective Members”).
49. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Waitr has been an employer within the meaning of
Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
50. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Waitr has been an enterprise within the meaning
of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
51. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Waitr has been an enterprise engaged in commerce
or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that said enterprise has had employees engaged in commerce or in the production
of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials
that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, or in any closely related process
or occupation directly essential to the production thereof, and in that that enterprise has had, and has,
an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of
excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated).

52. During the respective periods of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members’
employment by Waitr, these individuals have provided services for Waitr that involved interstate
commerce for purposes of the FLSA.
53. In performing the operations hereinabove described, Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Members have been engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce
within the meaning of §§ 203(b), 203(i), 203(j), 206(a), and 207(a) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b),
203(i), 203(j), 206(a), 207(a).
54. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were engaged in performing
delivery-related job duties associated with working in the restaurant and service industry. 29 U.S.C.
§ 203(j).
55. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members have
been individual employees who were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206–07.
56. The proposed class of similarly situated employees, i.e. putative class members, sought
to be certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), is defined in Paragraph 48.
57. The precise size and identity of the proposed class should be ascertainable from the
business records, tax records, and/or employee and personnel records of Waitr.
B. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE FLSA
58. Waitr has violated provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 15 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206,
207 and 215(a)(2), by employing individuals in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production
of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours
without compensating such employees for their employment for all hours in excess of forty (40) per
week at rates at least one and one-half times the regular rates for which they were employed and for
paying a wage below the federally mandated minimum wage.

59. Moreover, Waitr knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard carried out its illegal
patterns of failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. 29 U.S.C.
§ 255(a).
60. Waitr knew or should have known its pay practices were in violation of the FLSA.
61. Waitr is a sophisticated party and employer, and therefore knew (or should have
known) its pay policies were in violation of the FLSA.
62. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members, on the other hand, are (and were)
unsophisticated employees who trusted Waitr to pay them according to the law.
63. The decision and practice by Waitr not to pay minimum wage and overtime for
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members’ hours worked as delivery drivers was neither reasonable
nor in good faith.
64. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are entitled to minimum wage
for all hours worked as delivery drivers pursuant to the FLSA, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over forty (40) in a single workweek at rates at least one and one-half times the regular rates
for which they were employed, plus liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
C. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
65. All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
66. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of all of Waitr’s
delivery drivers throughout the United States who have been similarly situated to Plaintiffs with regard
to the work they performed and the manner in which they were paid.
67. Other similarly situated deliver drivers of Waitr have been victimized by Waitr’s
patterns, practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.
68. The Putative Class Members are defined in Paragraph 48.

69. Waitr’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members minimum wages and
overtime results from generally applicable policies and practices of Waitr, and does not depend on the
personal circumstances of Plaintiffs or the Putative Class Members.
70. Thus, Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of the experiences of the Putative Class
Members.
71. All of the Putative Class Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise job
requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be paid minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) in a single workweek.
72. Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction
from the common nucleus of liability facts.
73. Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will
not obtain redress of their injuries and Waitr will retain the proceeds of its violations.
74. Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.
Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims
of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.
75. Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated Plaintiffs should be certified as
defined as in Paragraph 48 and notice should be promptly sent.
VI.
RELIEF SOUGHT
76. Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment against Waitr as follows:
a. For an Order recognizing this proceeding as a collective action pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the FLSA and requiring Waitr to provide the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
telephone numbers, and social security numbers of all putative collective action members;

b. For an Order approving the form and content of a notice to be sent to all
Putative Class Members advising them of the pendency of this litigation and of their rights with respect
thereto;
c. For an Order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA finding Waitr liable for
unpaid back wages due to Plaintiffs (and those FLSA Collective Members who have joined in the suit),
and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due to Plaintiffs (and
those FLSA Collective Members who have joined in the suit);
d. For an Order awarding the costs and expenses of this action;
e. For an Order awarding attorneys’ fees;
f. For an Order awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest
rates allowed by law;
g. For an Order awarding Plaintiffs Halley a service award as permitted by law;
h. For an Order compelling the accounting of the books and records of Waitr,
at Waitr’s expense; and
i. For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.

Date: February 27, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
By: /s/ Philip Bohrer

Philip Bohrer (#14089)
[email protected]
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
By: /s/ Clif Alexander

Clif Alexander (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Texas Bar No. 24064805
[email protected]
Austin W. Anderson (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Texas Bar No. 24045189
[email protected]
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative

Class Members

Case 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
CONSENT TO JOIN WAGE CLAIM
Jualeia D. Halley
Print Name: _________________________________________
1. I hereby consent to participate in a collective action lawsuit against WAITR, INC. to pursue my
claims of unpaid overtime during the time that I worked with the company.
2. I understand that this lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and consent to
be bound by the Court’s decision.
3. I designate the law firm and attorneys at ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC as my attorneys to
prosecute my wage claims.
4. I intend to pursue my claim individually, unless and until the Court certifies this case as a
collective action. I agree to serve as the Class Representative if the Court so approves. If
someone else serves as the Class Representative, then I designate the Class Representative(s)
as my agents to make decisions on my behalf concerning the litigation, the method and manner
of conducting the litigation, the entering of an agreement with the Plaintiffs’ counsel
concerning attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other matters pertaining to this lawsuit.
5. I authorize the law firm and attorneys at ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC to use this consent
to file my claim in a separate lawsuit, class/collective action, or arbitration against the company.
Signature: ___________________________
Jualeia D. Halley (Nov 5, 2018)
Nov 5, 2018
Date: ___________________________
Exhibit B
Heather Gongaware
Print Name: _________________________________________
1. I hereby consent to participate in a collective action lawsuit against WAITR INCORPORATED

to pursue my claims of unpaid overtime during the time that I worked with the company.
Heather Gongaware
Signature: ___________________________
Heather Gongaware (Feb 18, 2019)
Feb 18, 2019
Date: ___________________________
2253050411
Phone: _____________________________
[email protected]
Email: __________________________
Kari Hugh
Print Name: _________________________________________

Signature: ___________________________
Kari Hugh (Feb 18, 2019)
Feb 18, 2019
Date: ___________________________
2258031722
Phone: _____________________________
[email protected]
Email: __________________________
Corey Spence
Print Name: _________________________________________

Signature: ___________________________
Corey Spence (Feb 26, 2019)
Feb 26, 2019
Date: ___________________________
3186255435
Phone: _____________________________
[email protected]
Email: __________________________

JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER GONGAWARE V Waitr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER GONGAWARE V Waitr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER GONGAWARE V Waitr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUALEIA HALLEY and HEATHER §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

minimum wage in violation of federal law.

wage during some or all workweeks.

6. Additionally, Waitr misclassified some of its delivery drivers as independent

rate for hours worked over forty (40) in a single workweek.

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

to opt-in to this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

Plaintiffs Halley worked and was paid.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816.

as this is an action arising under 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–19.

business office in the State of Louisiana.

2 The written consent of Jualeia Halley is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

3 The written consent of Heather Gongaware is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

Eastern District of Louisiana.

17. Venue is therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

surviving entity is now known as Waitr Holdings, Inc. (“Waitr”). 4

app to order food and have it delivered from participating restaurants.

Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. 5

approximately October of 2016 and was misclassified as an independent contractor.

gratuities (if any), and no other compensation.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

Members—for their automobile expenses.

Plaintiffs’ net wages by approximately $.55 per mile.

33. Waitr’s systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

pay them the federally mandated minimum wage or overtime compensation.

Clean Harbors and/or its clients.

the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.

work directly related to the management or general business operations of Waitr.

Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members interact with.

Class Members an hourly rate with no overtime pay.

or services of their own.

and one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

violate) the FLSA.

48. The FLSA Collective is defined as:

ALL CURRENT AND FORMER DELIVERY DRIVERS WHO WORKED FOR

Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated).

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

commerce for purposes of the FLSA.

203(i), 203(j), 206(a), 207(a).

commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206–07.

to be certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), is defined in Paragraph 48.

B. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE FLSA

paying a wage below the federally mandated minimum wage.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

known) its pay policies were in violation of the FLSA.

nor in good faith.

C. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

68. The Putative Class Members are defined in Paragraph 48.

Plaintiffs’ Original Collective Action Complaint

personal circumstances of Plaintiffs or the Putative Class Members.