Man files prevailing wage suit against J.C. Tenorio Enterprises

An employee of J.C. Tenorio Enterprises, Inc., has filed a prevailing wage lawsuit against his employer in the U.S. District Court for the NMI, claiming he was not paid since 2019 the legal minimum wage as determined by the annual Prevailing Wage Survey.

Christopher Lilles, an IT technician employed by J.C. Tenorio Enterprises, through attorney James Sirok, is suing his employer for allegedly failing to pay him the legal minimum wage as set by the annual Prevailing Wage Survey, which is about $12 per hour.

“This is an action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and relief from J.C. Tenorio Enterprises, Inc., arising from its failure to comply with federal law and federal regulations requiring employers hiring CW-1 workers in the CNMI to pay them a specific minimum wage [that] equals or exceeds the highest of either the current published prevailing wage, the federal minimum wage, or the CNMI minimum wage,” the lawsuit states.

Lilles, a former CW-1 visa worker, also claims that his employer lied that it was in compliance with the legal minimum wage required by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor Certification National Prevailing Wage Center, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Lilles claims he was paid just a little over $7 despite the prevailing wage being $12.

As relief, Lilles wants the court to declare that the defendant failed to comply with the law, regulations, and provisions and certifications with respect to the required minimum wage it was required to pay him since May 9, 2019.

Lilles also wants the court to declare that the defendant is liable for the wages that it should have legally paid him but failed to do so, in an amount to be determined at trial.

Lastly, the plaintiff wants the court to determine that J.C. Enterprises is liable for punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial, based on its unlawful, willful and egregious conduct in representing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor Certification National Prevailing Wage Center and USCIS that it was in compliance with payments of the legal minimum wage requirement when it knew it was not paying Lilles the legal minimum wage it was required to pay him.

According to the 22-page lawsuit, Lilles’ first cause of action is federal law and federal regulations that require the defendant to pay a defined minimum wage to plaintiff during the entire term of his employment.

“Defendant has failed to abide by the Workforce Act, the regulations adopted thereunder, and the terms and conditions contained in the applications for the hiring of plaintiff by failing to pay plaintiff the minimum wage, which plaintiff is legally entitled to under federal law and regulations during the time plaintiff has been employed,” Sirok said.

The second cause of action is that federal law and federal regulations require defendant to pay plaintiff increases in the required minimum wage occurring during the entire term of plaintiff’s employment with defendant.

“For the period of time beginning May 9, 2019, and continuing to the date hereof, defendant failed, and continues to fail, to pay plaintiff the appropriate minimum wage to which he is entitled based on the prevailing wage table rate at the beginning of his contracted employment periods and at every time the prevailing wage hourly wage increased during the term of his contracted employment periods,” he said.

The plaintiff’s third cause of action was that he suffered a legal wrong because of the conduct of the defendant failing to pay him the required minimum hourly rate during the entire term of his employment.

“The defendant has intentionally failed and willfully refused to pay plaintiff the minimum hourly rate legally required to be paid to him pursuant to the provisions of the Workforce Act, the Federal Regulations, and the published and effective prevailing wage tables. As a result, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, a legal wrong, irreparable harm and economic injury for which defendant is liable,” the lawyer said.

The fourth cause of action is that the defendant’s actions and conduct was and is deliberate and intentional, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.

“Defendant intentionally altered the employment term dates for the purpose of attempting to avoid paying plaintiff the minimum wage he was truly legally entitled to be paid. Thereafter, defendant without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, attached a signature purporting to be that of plaintiffs when in fact plaintiff did not sign the employment contract,” he claims.

Lastly, the fifth cause of action was breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.