A former employee has filed a collective action lawsuit against his previous employer, alleging violations of federal labor laws. Shawn Scalise initiated the complaint on February 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, targeting Panelmatic Electrical Solutions, LLC. The suit claims that the company failed to properly compensate its hourly employees for overtime work as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The plaintiff, Shawn Scalise, who worked as a Welder/Fabricator at Panelmatic’s Brookfield, Ohio location from March 13, 2023, to August 28, 2025, alleges that the company did not include Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. According to Scalise’s complaint, this omission resulted in underpayment for overtime hours worked beyond the standard 40-hour workweek. “Defendant failed to incorporate COLA pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into its Hourly Employees’ regular hourly rate calculation,” states the filing.
Scalise is bringing this action not only on his behalf but also on behalf of all similarly situated employees who have worked for Panelmatic over the past three years. The complaint argues that these employees were entitled to receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and a half times their regular pay but were instead compensated at an incorrect rate due to improper calculations by Panelmatic’s centralized payroll system.
The legal filing further details how Plaintiff’s August 21, 2025 paystub exemplifies these alleged discrepancies: “Plaintiff’s August 21, 2025 paystub reflects a COLA payment of $372.65,” yet this amount was not factored into his regular rate when calculating overtime wages. As such, Scalise accuses Panelmatic of willfully violating FLSA provisions and seeks backpay along with liquidated damages equivalent to unpaid wages.
The lawsuit requests several forms of relief from the court: designation as a collective action under FLSA; an order requiring Panelmatic to provide contact information for potential class members; full accounting and compensation for owed wages; declarations affirming FLSA violations by Panelmatic; monetary judgments including backpay plus liquidated damages; interest awards; coverage of legal costs and fees; service payments for named plaintiffs; and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Representing Scalise is attorney Kevin J. Stoops from Sommers Schwartz P.C., based in Southfield, Michigan. The case is presided over by Judge Hon., with Magistrate Mag., under Case ID: 4:26-cv-01254.
Source: 426cv01254_Shawn_Scalise_v_Panelmatic_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf