Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al

Court:
District of Guam
Subject Matter:
Labor and Employment
Procedural Posture:
Motion to Dismiss
Last Updated:
  • Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al
    Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al
    Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al, Case 1:12-cv-00008, Defendant's motion to dismiss, 3/31/2014, 1:30 PM (ChST) U.S. Courthouse, Hagatna, GU. Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood presiding.

    Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al, Case 1:12-cv-00008, Defendant's motion to dismiss, 3/31/2014, 1:30 PM (ChST) U.S...

Case Summary: 12-cv-00008

Defendants operate a construction company in Harmon, Guam that employs at least sixteen workers recruited from China through the United States’ H-2B visa program. Following a 2011 investigation by United States Department of Labor investigators, Plaintiff Secretary of Labor filed this action against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): failure to pay the minimum wage; failure to pay overtime premiums; failure to make, keep, and preserve adequate records required by the law; and retaliation against employees who Defendants believed spoke to investigators.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. The FLSA prevents employers from discharging or discriminating against employees that file a complaint or testify against their employer in proceedings under the act. Defendants put forth two arguments against the motion: Plaintiff’s pleadings did not adequately show that (1) the employees engaged in activities protected by the act, and (2) that Defendants’ actions against the employees did not amount to discharge or discrimination.

This video shows the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on March 31, 2014. The court subsequently denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff had adequately pled both elements.

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 5/16/2012 (Doc #1)
  • Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss 10/18/2013 (Doc #66)
  • Plaintiff filed Memorandum opposing Defendants’ motion 11/15/2013 (Doc #69)
  • Hearing on Defendants’ motion 3/31/2014 (Doc #81)
  • Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 4/08/2014 (Doc #82)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.