1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


____________________________________
Ulber Morales, Julio Olivar, Hisai Ramirez, :
Alejandro Rodriguez, Cristian Ramirez, :
and Misael Morales : CIVIL ACTION NO:
Plaintiffs, :
v. :
:
Gourmet Heaven, Inc. and Chung Cho :
:
: September 15, 2014
Defendants :
____________________________________:


COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs Ulber Morales, Julio Olivar, Hisai Ramirez, Alejandro Rodriguez,
Misael Morales, and Cristian Ramirez worked ceaselessly in Defendants stores without being
paid the minimum wage or overtime. Plaintiffs complained about this treatment and were
threatened, harassed, and fired by Defendants. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid
wages, as well as liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys fees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Connecticut statutory provisions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b),
28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337, and 1343, and has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the events giving rise
to this complaint occurred within this judicial district.

Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 15
2

THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Ulber Morales worked for Defendants at 15 Broadway Avenue in New
Haven. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Morales was an employee within the
meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and Connecticut General
Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(2).
5. Plaintiff Julio Olivar worked for Defendants at 15 Broadway Avenue in New
Haven. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Olivar was an employee within the meaning
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and Connecticut General Statutes 31-
58(e) and 31-71a(2).
6. Plaintiff Hisai Ramirez works for Defendants at 15 Broadway Avenue in New
Haven. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Ramirez was an employee within the
meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and Connecticut General
Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(2).
7. Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez worked for Defendants at 15 Broadway and 44
Whitney Avenue in New Haven. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Rodriguez was an
employee within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and
Connecticut General Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(2).
8. Plaintiff Cristian Ramirez worked for Defendants at 15 Broadway in New Haven.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Ramirez was an employee within the meaning of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and Connecticut General Statutes 31-58(e)
and 31-71a(2).
9. Plaintiff Misael Morales worked for Defendants at 15 Broadway Avenue in New
Haven. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Morales was an employee within the
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 15
3

meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1) and Connecticut General
Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(2).
10. Defendant Chung Cho resides in Connecticut. Defendant Cho operates Gourmet
Heaven and is its president and sole shareholder. Defendant Cho made all relevant decisions, or
delegated the power to make all relevant decisions, regarding hiring, payment of wages,
scheduling, and work duties of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Cho employed dozens of workers in
Connecticut, and oversaw Plaintiffs work. Therefore, Defendant Cho was an employer within
the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and Connecticut General
Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(1).
FACTS
Gourmet Heaven, I nc.
11. Gourmet Heaven, Inc. is a domestic corporation incorporated in Connecticut with
a business address of 15 Broadway in New Haven, Connecticut.
12. Gourmet Heaven, Inc. operates two groceries in New Haven, Connecticut and two
groceries in Providence, Rhode Island.
13. Gourmet Heaven, Inc. did more than $500,000 per year in business.
14. Gourmet Heaven purchased and used food and other products that originated
outside of Connecticut.
15. Gourmet Heaven hired, paid, supervised, and scheduled Plaintiffs and was
therefore an employer as that term is defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
203(d) and by Connecticut General Statutes 31-58(e) and 31-71a(1).
Chung Cho
16. Chung Cho is President of Gourmet Heaven, Inc.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 3 of 15
4

17. Chung Cho is the sole owner of Gourmet Heaven, Inc.
18. Chung Cho is the agent for the service of process for Gourmet Heaven, Inc.
19. Chung Cho was present at the New Haven Gourmet Heaven locations almost
every day of the year.
20. Chung Cho hired all the managers and supervisory staff at the New Haven
Gourmet Heaven locations.
21. Chung Cho delegated the hiring of new non-managerial employees to his
managers.
22. Chung Cho had the power to discipline and fire employees at Gourmet Heaven
and exercised that power from time to time. For example, he fired an employee for stealing from
the cash register.
23. Chung Cho monitored employees through video monitors installed in his office.
24. Chung Cho personally instructed employees in the performance of their duties
from time-to-time, and routinely delegated such instruction to his managers.
24. Chung Cho was in charge of all salary decisions. For example, when Ulber
Morales asked for a raise, it was Mr. Cho who granted it. When Mr. Cho was out-of-town for
one week, Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez was not paid until he got back.
25. Defendants paid Plaintiffs in cash, and it was Chung Cho who personally
provided the cash.
26. Chung Cho set the store schedule and delegated employee scheduling to his
managers.
J ulio Olivar
27. Julio Olivar worked for Defendants in from 2006 until December 2013.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 4 of 15
5

28. Julio Olivar worked 72 hours per week for Defendants during almost every week
he worked.
29. Defendants did not always pay Mr. Olivar the statutory minimum wage. For
example, they only paid him $400 for 72 hours of work during the first week of November 2006.
That represents an hourly rate of $5.55 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was
$7.40 per hour. As another example, Defendants only paid Mr. Olivar $525 for 72 hours of
work during the week of October 9 through August 16, 2011. That represents an hourly rate of
$7.29 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was $8.25 per hour.
30. Defendants never paid Mr. Olivar an overtime premium for any week he worked.
For example, Defendants paid Mr. Olivar $660 for 72 hours of work during the first week of
November, 2012, which represents an hourly rate of $9.16 per hour with no overtime premium.
The minimum lawful amount Defendants could have paid Mr. Olivar for that week was $726.
31. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Olivars hours or pay.
Ulber Morales
32. Plaintiff Ulber Morales worked for Defendants from May 2011 to December
2012.
33. Mr. Morales worked at least 72 hours per week during each workweek during
almost his entire tenure at Gourmet Heaven.
34. Defendants did ever pay Mr. Morales the statutory minimum wage. For example,
they only paid him $400 for 72 hours of work between October 9 and October 16, 2011. That
represents an hourly rate of $5.55 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was
$8.25 per hour.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 5 of 15
6

35. Mr. Morales was never paid an overtime premium for any week he worked. For
example, Defendants paid Mr. Morales $420 for 72 hours of work during the week of November
6 and November 13, which represents an hourly rate of $5.83 with no overtime premium. The
minimum lawful amount Defendant could have paid Mr. Morales for that week was $726.
40. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Morales hours or pay.
Hisai Ramirez
41. Hisai Ramirez worked for Defendants from 2011 until December 2013.
42. Mr. Ramirez worked sixty hours per week during each workweek during almost
his entire tenure at Gourmet Heaven.
43. Defendants almost never paid Mr. Olivar the statutory minimum wage. For
example, Defendants paid him $440 for 60 hours of work during the first week of October 2012.
That constitutes a rate of $7.33 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum was $8.25 per
hour.
45. Mr. Ramirez was never paid an overtime premium for any week he worked. For
example, Defendants paid Mr. Olivar $440 for 60 hours of work during the first week of April
2013, which represents an hourly rate of $7.33 per hour with no overtime premium. The
minimum lawful amount Defendants could have paid Mr. Ramirez for that week was $577.50.
46. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Ramirezs hours or pay.
Alejandro Rodriguez
47. Alejandro Rodriguez has worked for Defendants from March 2003 to the present.
48. Mr. Rodriguez worked 72 hours per week during each workweek during almost
his entire tenure at Gourmet Heaven until 2014.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 6 of 15
7

49. Defendants almost never paid Mr. Rodriguez the statutory minimum wage. For
example, during the first week of December 2003 Defendants paid him $240 for 72 hours of
work. That represents a rate of $3.33 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was
$6.90 per hour. During the second week of January 2013, Defendants paid him $470 for 72
hours of work. That represents a rate of $6.52 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum
wage was $8.25 per hour.
50. Mr. Rodriguez was never paid an overtime premium for any week he worked.
For example, Defendants paid him $537 for 72 hours of work during the first week of July 2013,
which represents an hourly rate of $7.46 per hour with no overtime premium. The minimum
lawful amount Defendants could have paid Mr. Rodriguez that week was $726.
51. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Rodriguezs hours or pay.
Cristian Ramirez
52. Mr. Ramirez worked for Defendants from September 2010 to December 2013.
53. Mr. Ramirez worked at least 72 hours per week during each workweek during
almost his entire tenure at Gourmet Heaven.
54. Defendants almost never paid Mr. Ramirez the statutory minimum wage. For
example, they paid him $340 for 72 hours of work during the first week of October 2010. That
represents a rate of $4.77 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was $8.25.
Defendants paid Mr. Ramirez $450 for 72 hours of work during the first week of November
2012. That represents a rate of $6.25 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum wage was
$8.25 per hour.
55. Defendants did pay Mr. Ramirez any overtime premium for any week he worked.
For example, during the first week of March 2012, Defendants paid him $480 for 72 hours of
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 7 of 15
8

work, representing an hourly rate of $6.66 with no overtime premium. The minimum lawful
amount Defendants could have paid Mr. Ramirez that week was $726.
56. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Ramirezs hours or pay.
Misael Morales
57. Plaintiff Misael Morales worked for Defendants from 2009 through the last week
of 2013.
58. Mr. Morales worked 72 hours per week during each workweek during almost his
entire tenure at Gourmet Heaven until his last month of work
59. Defendants almost never paid Mr. Morales the statutory minimum wage. For
example, they paid him $340 for 72 hours of work during the first week of October 2009. That
represents a rate of $4.72 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum was $8.00 per hour.
Defendants paid him $440 for 72 hours of work during the first week of March 2013. That
represents a rate of $6.11 per hour at a time when the statutory minimum was $8.25 per hour.
60. Defendants did not pay Mr. Morales an overtime premium for any week he
worked. For example, Defendants paid him $480 for 72 hours of work during the first week of
July 2013, which represents a rate of $6.66 per hour with no overtime premium. The minimum
lawful amount Defendants could have paid Mr. Morales for that week was $726.
61. Defendants did not keep accurate records of Mr. Morales pay or hours.
Connecticut Department of Labor I nvestigation
62. The Connecticut state Department of Labor performed an investigation and audit
of Defendants pay practices for the period between June 19, 2011 and August 2, 2013.
63. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Misael Morales by $15,546.75 during that two-year period.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 8 of 15
9

64. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Ulber Morales by $8,291 during that two-year period.
65. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Julio Olivar by $7,136.63 during that two-year period.
66. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Hisai Ramirez by $12,024.00 during that two-year period.
67. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Cristian Ramirez by $14,982.50 during that two-year period.
68. The Connecticut Department of Labor determined that Defendants underpaid
Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez by $25,708.00 during that two-year period.
69. The Connecticut Department of Labor investigation and audit was in response to a
wage complaint filed by Plaintiff Ulber Morales.
70. Once Defendant Cho knew about the investigation, he ordered other workers to
get into a truck, find Ulber Morales, and convince him to withdraw the complaint.
71. Defendant Cho told the other workers that if Plaintiff Ulber Morales did not
withdraw the complaint, police and immigration authorities would arrest and detain them.
72. Because the workers could not locate Ulber Morales, Mr. Cho called them all into
his office where he told them to lie to the Department of Labor investigators about how much
they had earned in order to frustrate the investigation.
73. During one of the Department of Labors visits to Gourmet Heaven, a manager
told all the employees that Mr. Cho says you have to get out of the store.
74. Defendants made an agreement with the Connecticut Department of Labor to pay
a portion of their unpaid wages but failed to comply, at which point Mr. Cho was arrested and
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 9 of 15
10

criminally charged with numerous counts of wage theft, defrauding alien workers, failure to
maintain proper employment records, and larceny.
75. Defendants have subsequently paid a portion of what they owe to Plaintiffs in
unpaid wages, but have not any liquidated or double damages under state or federal law.
Gourmet Heaven Employees were kept in the dark about their wage and hour rights
and punished for asserting them

76. Defendants did not post any of the notices required by federal or state law alerting
workers to their wage-and-hour rights even though they knew themselves about these rights and
the requirement to post such notices.
77. Defendants paid Plaintiffs exclusively in cash until the Connecticut Department of
Labor investigation commenced.
78. Defendants did not maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs pay.
79. Defendants intentionally misled Plaintiffs about their wage-and-hour rights by
warning them of probable arrest or deportation for workers if the Connecticut Department of
Labor complaint was not withdrawn.
80. After a meeting between Department of Labor investigator Blair Bertaccini and
the Gourmet Heaven employees, Mr. Chos hand-picked manager Margarito Zamora told several
of the Plaintiffs they were snitches and he was going to restrict their hours on account of them
having told Mr. Bertaccini that they were being paid in cash.
81. In an effort to fool the authorities and employees, during the Department of
Labors wage investigation, Defendant Cho began having all of the employees punch a clock for
40 hours per week, paid them for those hours by check, and then paid them for hours over 40
with cash at the regular rate, all the while assuring the workers that this was legal.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 10 of 15
11

82. As a result of Defendants threatening and deceptive conduct, Plaintiffs were not
aware of their rights to minimum wage and overtime until after the initiation of the Connecticut
Department of Labor investigation.
83. In December 2013, Defendants fired each Plaintiff in retaliation for their
cooperation with the wage investigation, except for Alejandro Rodriguez.
84. After firing those workers, Defendant Cho who was also their landlord - had
them evicted from their apartment.
85. In December 2013 a store manager warned Mr. Rodriguez not to attend meetings
of Unidad Latin en Accin, a community organization that helps workers recover unpaid wages,
and disciplined him. He was told If you go again, the boss will be mad and tell you theres no
work for you, if you dont go again, he will treat you well.
86. Upon eventually learning of Alejandro Rodriguezs continued participation in
meetings with Unidad Latina en Accin about wage violations at Gourmet Heaven and that he
had himself made a wage complaint, in June of 2014 Defendants reduced his hours and pay.
COUNT ONE - FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
(Minimum Wage)

87. By the conduct described above, Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights to be paid a
minimum wage pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et
seq.
88. Defendants conduct, as described above, was in willful violation of the Plaintiffs
rights pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. As a result of the
Defendants unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs has suffered a loss of compensation from
employment that is due and owing to them.

Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 11 of 15
12

COUNT TWO CONNECTICUT MINIMUM WAGE ACT
(Minimum Wage)

90. By the conduct described above, Defendants violated the Plaintiffs rights to be
paid a minimum wage with the provisions of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, Connecticut
General Statutes 31-58, et seq.
91. Defendants actions as described above were made in bad faith, and were
arbitrary and/or unreasonable. As a result of the Defendants unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs
have suffered a loss of compensation from employment that is due and owing to them.
COUNT THREE - FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
(Overtime)

92. By the conduct described above, Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights to be paid
an overtime premium consistent with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
201, et seq.
93. Defendants conduct as described above was in willful violation of the Plaintiffs
rights pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. As a result of the
Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of compensation from employment that
is due and owing to them.
COUNT FOUR - CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES 31-58, et seq.
(Overtime)

94. By the conduct described above, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs overtime
wages in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 31-60a and 31-76c.
95. Defendants violation of the Connecticut General Statutes was made in bad faith,
and was arbitrary and/or unreasonable.
96. As a result of the Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of
compensation from employment that is due and owing to them.
Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 12 of 15
13

COUNT FIVE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES 31-71, 72
(Wage Payment Law)

97. By the conduct described above, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs all moneys due
weekly, failed to pay wages in full upon termination, and unlawfully withheld a portion of
Plaintiffs wages and therefore violated Connecticut General Statutes 31-71b, 31-71c, and 31-
71e.
98. Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs lawfully pursuant to 31-71 was done in bad
faith, was arbitrary, and/or unreasonable.
99. As a result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of
compensation from employment that is due and owing to them.
COUNT SIX FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
(Retaliation)

100. By the conduct described above, including firing five of the Plaintiffs and
reducing the hours of the sixth in retaliation for their pursuit of their wage and hour rights,
Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3).
101. As a result of such conduct, Plaintiffs suffered emotional and monetary damage.
COUNT SEVEN 31-51q
102. By disciplining Mr. Rodriguez and reducing his hours in retaliation for his
constitutionally-protected right to participate in meetings with the community organization
Unidad Latina en Accin, Defendants violated Connecticut General Statutes 31-51q.
103. As a result of this unlawful retaliation, Mr. Rodriguez lost income and suffered
emotional distress.


Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 13 of 15
14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray that the Court award them:
1. All compensation due and owing to them by the Defendants;
2. Liquidated damages in equal amount to their unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b);
4. Double damages for any violation of C.G.S 31-76c pursuant to C.G.S. 31-68;
5. Double damages for any violation of C.G.S. 31-71 pursuant to C.G.S. 31-72;
6. Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and C.G.S.
31-68 and 31-72;
7. Punitive damages
8. Nominal damages;
9. Such other legal or equitable relief as the Court may deem just.

THE PLAINTIFF
By: _/s/___________________
James Bhandary-Alexander
Ct28135
New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc.
426 State Street
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 946-4811
(203) 498-9271 fax
Email: jbhandary-alexander@nhlegal.org
His Attorney








Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 14 of 15
15



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 15, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Complaint was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system or
by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the
Courts CM/ECF System.

/s/ James Bhandary-Alexander





Case 3:14-cv-01333-VLB Document 1 Filed 09/15/14 Page 15 of 15