A dispute over worker classification and unpaid overtime wages has led to a collective action lawsuit involving a group of current and former pool installers. The legal complaint alleges that employees were denied proper overtime pay due to being misclassified as independent contractors, an issue that could affect many workers in similar roles.
The lawsuit was filed by Ricardo Carvajal on March 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against The Great American Pool LTD. Co.
According to the filing, Carvajal worked as a pool installer and crew leader for the defendant from approximately February 2023 to January 2026. He claims he regularly worked between 45 and 60 hours per week but was not paid at one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over forty in a workweek, as required by law. Instead, he states he was often paid straight time for overtime hours and was not compensated for all hours worked, including time before clocking in or after clocking out.
The complaint asserts that “Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and as such paid him a flat hourly rate for his substantial regular and overtime hours.” It further alleges that other pool installers were subject to similar practices: “Defendant also misclassifies other pool installers and similar employees as independent contractors and likewise denied them their proper overtime compensation.”
Carvajal brings this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically citing section 207(a), which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. The suit is structured as a collective action under FLSA section 216(b), seeking relief on behalf of all similarly situated workers who performed installation or servicing of pool equipment during the three-year period before the filing of the complaint.
The document outlines several reasons why Carvajal believes he should have been classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor. These include being required to track work hours like hourly employees, having no control over job assignments or schedules, receiving instructions on how work should be performed, being scheduled significant hours that prevented outside employment, and working under rules set by the company. The complaint states: “Defendant hired and fired workers, issued pay, supervised, directed, disciplined, scheduled, and performed all other duties generally associated with that of an employer with regard to Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members.”
The lawsuit argues that these conditions show an employer-employee relationship rather than that of an independent contractor: “Plaintiff did not operate an independent business, did not advertise his services to the public, and did not have a meaningful opportunity for profit or loss based on managerial skill.” It further claims that classifying workers as independent contractors allowed the defendant to avoid obligations under federal labor law: “Defendant classified its workers as independent contractors to avoid its obligations under the FLSA… including paying proper overtime compensation…”
Carvajal alleges that these practices were part of a broader policy affecting many workers: “Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been denied proper overtime pay…” He describes observing similar treatment among coworkers at various job sites operated by The Great American Pool LTD. Co.
In terms of damages sought, Carvajal requests recovery of unpaid overtime compensation for himself and all similarly situated class members. He also seeks liquidated damages equal to any unpaid wages under section 216(b) of the FLSA: “Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation… [and] an amount equal to all of their unpaid wages as liquidated damages.” Additionally, he asks for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs associated with bringing the action, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Beatriz Sosa-Morris and John Neuman from Sosa-Morris Neuman PLLC in Houston. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-2139.
Source: 426cv02139_Ricardo_Carvajal_v_The_Great_American_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
