Lawsuit Filed in New York Claims Qatari Dignitaries Failed to Properly Pay Ex-Employees

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A Qatari dignitary and his wife have been named in a proposed collective action filed by three former employees who claim they worked out of the defendants’ New York City residence without proper wages.

The plaintiffs were employed as a tutor, a personal trainer and a security guard for the couple, who allegedly maintained a “policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation,” according to the case.

After being guaranteed at least three months of work, one plaintiff moved from Chicago to New York to tutor the defendants’ children, the suit says. The man claims he was initially hired on a trial basis during which time he performed 50 hours of labor without any compensation. The plaintiff went on to accept a full-time position, the case continues, and regularly worked over 40 hours per week without overtime wages. The suit alleges the man was fired after just one month on the job in retaliation for asking his employers about his unpaid overtime.

Another plaintiff—who worked for the defendants as a personal trainer for approximately three years—alleges he typically put in between 70 and 90 hours each week while accompanying the couple on their travels to Europe, the Middle East, and across the United States. According to the complaint, the man received a flat monthly salary of $5,314 regardless of how many overtime hours he worked.

The third plaintiff, who the suit says also traveled with the defendants, claims she clocked between 75 and 90 hours each week as a security guard for a fixed salary of $5,664 per month. The woman asserts she was also deprived of overtime wages and never received her final paycheck.

The case goes on to accuse the defendants of violating the plaintiffs’ respective employment agreements by not providing them with proper advanced notice before firing them. In addition, the suit says the agreements themselves were illegal in that they unlawfully demanded the plaintiffs be “completely flexible” in their roles. The contracts allegedly stated that no time off would be granted and required workers to be “on duty at all times without extra pay.” The plaintiffs allege they had no choice but to accept the contracts’ unlawful terms “or else forfeit their jobs.”

Lastly, the suit details alleged violations of state labor law stemming from improper recordkeeping and the failure to issue wage statements.