PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Bernard,
Below is the weekly research status update on the Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. pre-litigation wage-and-hour audit (Matter No. 1021-00005), as we discussed at the team kick-off meeting. James Underwood and I have been working through the research assignments since the matter opened on January 30, and I wanted to give you a consolidated picture of where things stand, flag a few issues that need your guidance, and confirm priorities given the February 28 demand-letter response deadline.
---
**1. STATUS OF RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS**
**A. FLSA Administrative Exemption — Lead/Senior Hourly Role Classifications**
The memo is in final draft and has been circulated to James for his review. The analysis addresses whether VHG's classification of certain "lead" and "senior" hourly roles as exempt under the FLSA administrative exemption (29 C.F.R. § 541.200) is defensible, including the salary-basis test, the duties test, and relevant Eleventh Circuit and DOL guidance.
Key finding to flag: several of the "lead" and "senior" roles appear to fail the duties test. The primary duty of these positions does not involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance — they are essentially hourly operational positions with modest supervisory overlays. The memo identifies the specific roles at risk of reclassification. I can have this on your desk for review by end of week.
**B. Automatic Meal-Break Deduction Practices**
This memo is complete; I circulated it in a prior email along with the analysis of the 30-minute auto-deduction under Luminos TimeTrack rule AR-MEAL-030. The memo analyzes legality under 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 — specifically the requirement that employees be "completely relieved of duties" during the deducted period.
The on-call allegations in the demand letter — that employees are required to remain on-call and perform duties during meal periods — are concerning if substantiated by the timekeeping data. The critical question is whether VHG has an adequate exception/correction process that allows employees to report interrupted meal breaks and receive compensation. This is a factual question that the Luminos TimeTrack data and VHG's HR policies (Employee Handbook v.7.2, effective January 1, 2025) should answer. I flagged this as a high-priority item in the data collection request list I sent to Enrique Fuentes on February 3; I have not yet received a response.
**C. Pre-Shift and Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work**
James's memo is in advanced draft. It analyzes the compensability of alleged pre-shift and post-shift activities — donning/doffing uniforms, booting up computer systems, and shift-handover briefings — estimated at 15–25 minutes per shift. The analysis applies the FLSA continuous-workday doctrine, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and relevant Eleventh Circuit precedent to assess whether these activities are "integral and indispensable" to the employees' principal duties.
Preliminary conclusions:
- Uniform donning/doffing and system boot-up are likely compensable under current Eleventh Circuit standards. - Shift-handover briefings are a closer call, depending on whether they are employer-mandated or voluntary — another factual question we will need VHG to address.
James expects to finalize by February 12.
**D. Florida Tipped-Employee Minimum Wage Compliance**
This memo is in draft, roughly 75% complete. It addresses VHG's compliance with Art. X, § 24, Florida Constitution for front-desk and concierge employees participating in tip pools, including the tip-credit requirements: Florida minimum wage of $14.00/hour minus the $3.02 tip credit = $10.98/hour tipped minimum wage (effective September 30, 2025). The memo also examines the validity of the tip pool under FLSA § 203(m) and applicable record-keeping obligations.
One item worth highlighting now: this claim category carries a 5-year statute of limitations under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b), extending the lookback to January 14, 2021. That is significantly longer than the FLSA lookback periods (2 years for non-willful violations, 3 years for willful), and it could substantially expand the putative class size and damages exposure on this particular claim. I expect to complete the memo by February 14.
**E. FLSA Collective Action Conditional Certification Standards**
This memo is complete. It analyzes the standard for conditional certification in the Middle District of Florida under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), including the "similarly situated" requirement and VHG's potential arguments to defeat or narrow conditional certification.
Key observation: VHG may have viable arguments based on property-level variations in practices — seven properties across the Tampa Bay, Orlando, and South Florida markets may have different operational practices, different managers, and different levels of compliance. However, the centralized payroll system through Luminos Payroll Solutions (account LTT-VHG-2022-0041) and the uniform application of auto-deduction rule AR-MEAL-030 across all properties cuts against a "lack of commonality" argument. Plaintiff's counsel at Garza, Linden & Okafor will almost certainly emphasize the company-wide, uniform nature of the Luminos system settings. The putative collective size per the demand letter is 4,100–5,900 individuals depending on scope.
---
**2. FLAGGED ISSUE — PALOMAR REALTY PARTNERS JOINT-EMPLOYER QUESTION**
I want to flag an issue that I think warrants your guidance before I go much further.
The Verimark Shores Clearwater property (455 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater Beach, FL 33767) — 210 rooms, approximately 260 employees (an estimated 190 hourly) — is owned by Palomar Realty Partners LLC (Ricardo E. Montalvo, Managing Member) and managed by VHG under the Hotel Management Agreement dated June 1, 2021 (HMA-2021-0601-PC). VHG employs all on-site staff directly at the Clearwater property. The demand letter from Garza, Linden & Okafor includes Verimark Shores Clearwater among the seven properties at issue.
This raises a joint-employer exposure question under the FLSA economic-reality test — whether Palomar could be deemed a joint employer alongside VHG. I have started a memo on this analysis, but I have a threshold question: should the team be reaching out to Palomar now to begin discussions about a common interest / joint defense agreement? I understand you have been considering a draft common interest agreement, and I wanted to confirm whether you'd like me to assist with that.
I also have a practical concern: the Hotel Management Agreement likely contains indemnification provisions that may allocate wage-and-hour liability between VHG and Palomar, and I need access to the HMA to complete my analysis. Has Devin Arroyo provided a copy yet, or should I request it directly from him?
Finally, if Palomar is brought into the matter, this could affect the scoping-phase budget, and we may want to flag that for VHG sooner rather than later.
---
**3. PRIORITIZATION**
With the February 28 response deadline now 18 days away, I would appreciate your guidance on the following:
1. Should I prioritize completing the tipped-employee memo (Item D) and the Palomar joint-employer analysis over other items? 2. Should we be coordinating with James on the pre-/post-shift memo to ensure consistency across the memos on damages assumptions — specifically the blended average hourly rate of $16.50/hour, average weekly hours of 42.5, and the exposure model? 3. The draft response to the GLO demand letter is out with Devin Arroyo for his comments — have you received the redline back yet? 4. Has the insurance tender to Pinnacle Indemnity (Lydia Bowman) been sent? I recall the notice deadline is March 15, 2026 (60 days from VHG's receipt of the demand letter on January 16), so we have some runway, but I want to make sure it's on track.
---
**4. RIDGEPOINT ADVISORY ENGAGEMENT**
Several of the research memos identify factual questions — meal-break correction processes, actual time-punch data patterns, property-level variation in practices — that cannot be fully resolved through legal research alone. This reinforces the importance of engaging Ridgepoint Advisory Group LLC (Dr. Alicia Tran) for the forensic payroll analytics. The statistical sampling of Luminos TimeTrack data will be essential to validate or narrow the exposure estimates in these memos.
The estimated Ridgepoint engagement is $85,000–$120,000. Combined with the Calderwood & Harkness scoping-phase estimate of $175,000–$225,000, the total falls within the board-authorized cap of $350,000. Has VHG approved the Ridgepoint engagement, or is the draft engagement letter still pending?
---
Happy to schedule a call or sit down in person later this week to discuss prioritization and the Palomar question — James and I are both available. No attachments to this email; all referenced memos and materials have been previously circulated or are noted above.
Best regards,
Nadia Petrov Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 3400 Miami, FL 33131 npetrov@calderwoodharkness.com
---
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message.*