A group of former emergency medical workers claims they were denied legally required overtime pay and subjected to unlawful employment practices by their previous employer, raising questions about wage compliance in industries that rely on long shifts and continuous coverage. The lawsuit was filed by Lilian Holt, Deanna Miller, Jon Sparkman, and Tyler Kaska on March 17, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against GEMS 911, Inc., which does business as GEMS EMS, Fire & Rescue and GEMS Occupational Medicine, along with its owner Gilley Grey.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs worked as EMTs, paramedics, safety medics, or site medics at large construction projects including solar farms in Texas and other states. They allege that instead of paying overtime wages as required by law for hours worked over forty per week, the company implemented a policy of classifying frontline medics as “independent contractors” while exercising employer-level control over their schedules and duties. The suit states that this classification allowed defendants to pay straight-time rates for all hours worked—including those above forty per week—and to withhold information about hours worked or additional compensation such as per diem payments.
The plaintiffs report regularly working between 50 to 70 hours per week without receiving time-and-one-half overtime pay. For example, Holt alleges she worked up to 70 hours weekly for months without proper overtime compensation; Miller estimates she accrued approximately 370 overtime hours between October 2024 and March 2025; Kaska reports at least 177.29 overtime hours within a similar period; Sparkman also claims substantial unpaid overtime. In addition to wage issues, the complaint asserts that defendants billed clients for per diem allowances intended for workers but did not pass these funds on to employees.
When Holt raised concerns about unpaid overtime with Grey—the company’s owner—she was reportedly paid overtime only going forward but not retroactively or for withheld per diem amounts. The alleged pay practices continued for other medics into late 2024 and early 2025.
Plaintiff Miller brings additional individual claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She alleges that after being granted leave to care for her son during brain surgery—a right protected under both statutes—her belongings were removed from her worksite at Grey’s direction. Shortly after returning from leave in March 2025, Miller says she was terminated by speakerphone alongside Sparkman without prior discipline or explanation. Miller contends her termination was due to taking protected leave associated with her son’s disability.
The complaint details how defendants maintained centralized control over job assignments despite labeling some workers as independent contractors: assigning staff to specific sites at set times; requiring use of company vehicles; mandating timekeeping through electronic applications; directing patient care decisions; instructing on documentation methods intended to avoid regulatory reporting requirements; and controlling expense reimbursement policies such as mileage when personal vehicles were used in lieu of company equipment.
Sparkman describes learning that although he was told no per diem would be paid because it was not charged to clients on his behalf, records later showed clients had actually paid such allowances—which he never received. Kaska recounts being required to use his own truck without reimbursement when a company vehicle broke down while still being tracked via location-enabled apps installed on his personal phone.
The plaintiffs assert these practices violate several federal statutes: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions; ADA protections against associational discrimination related to family members’ disabilities; FMLA rights concerning leave taken for serious health conditions affecting immediate family members; as well as Texas common law prohibiting unjust enrichment when funds designated for employees are retained by employers.
As relief from the court, plaintiffs seek certification of a collective action under FLSA so similarly situated current or former EMTs who experienced similar pay practices can join the case. They request unpaid wages including back pay for overtime work performed during a three-year period preceding the filing date plus an equal amount in liquidated damages where permitted by law. For Miller specifically under ADA and FMLA claims they seek reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof along with compensatory damages related to emotional distress or punitive damages if warranted by findings of intentional violations.
Additionally they ask for restitution of any per diem or other compensation billed but not paid out under Texas common law theories of unjust enrichment along with pre-judgment interest where applicable. Plaintiffs also demand reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing their case before the court.
The case is represented by attorney Nickolas George Spiliotis of Spiliotis Law PLLC based in Houston (State Bar No. 24033092). The civil action is identified as Case No. 4:26-cv-02132.
Source: 426cv02132_Lilian_Holt_v_Gems_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
