According to the lawsuit, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC, Ramon Avlia d/b/a G&A Services, and Amazon.com Services LLC were all affiliated with Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC between March 2020 and August 2025.

According to the lawsuit, our clients typically worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, thus entitling them to overtime compensation. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants refused to pay our clients and similarly situated employees for working more than forty (40) hours per week, causing our clients and other employees to be deprived of their earned wages.

The lawsuit states that our clients are seeking certification of a class of Missouri employees defined as: “[a]ll current or former employees of Defendants who worked within the State of Missouri within three years before the date this lawsuit was filed and who were not paid compensation for hours they worked for Defendants, including time automatically deducted from their checks for breaks when they were required to be on call and for time worked in excess of forty hours.”

This case is ongoing. For more information, contact attorney Nicole Matlock at nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been discriminated against, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim.

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Class Action Complaint Against Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC, Ramon Avlia d/b/a G&A Services, and Amazon.com Services LLC appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

In 2018, our client filed a lawsuit against the school district, alleging that the district failed to promote her to a high school principal position because of racial discrimination. 

In July 2020, the district installed a new Superintendent. The lawsuit alleges that the Superintendent requested a list of individuals who had sued CPSD and stated that he wanted to “get rid of” those individuals. 

Between 2021 and 2024, the lawsuit contains allegations that Defendant’s senior administrators repeatedly harassed and targeted our client because of her race and her prior protected activity. The lawsuit alleges that our client was told by CPSD senior administrators that she was considered “an angry Black woman” and that CPSD made baseless accusations of policy violations against our client. 

According to the lawsuit, CPSD did not treat similarly situated non-Black employees and/or employees who had not engaged in protected activity in this manner. 

The lawsuit states that in Spring 2024, our client started planning the middle school’s annual Back-to-School Bash, a community engagement event that she had organized and led for approximately eight years. 

By March 2024, our client had scheduled the Bash for Friday, August 16, 2024, reserved the venue, notified partner organizations, and informed CPSD of the date. Our client was the primary organizer and oversaw all event operations. 

On May 26, 2024, our client learned that CPSD’s superintendent scheduled the back-to-school Convocation to occur at the same date and time as the Bash. According to the lawsuit, the Convocation had never been held on a Friday afternoon, and when she learned of the conflict, our client immediately notified her supervisor and another senior administrative staff at CPSD. The lawsuit states that both were aware that our client’s attendance at the Bash was essential and did not inform our client at that time that she would be required to attend the Convocation instead. 

The lawsuit alleges that on August 7, 2024, the day after our client sent out the invitation for Bash to West Middle School Families, a senior administrative leader informed our client for the first time that she would be disciplined if she did not attend the Convocation. 

According to the lawsuit, CPSD refused to process our client’s request for time off so she could attend the Bash. Our client then attended the Bash rather than the Convocation.

The lawsuit states that on or about August 23, 2024, CPSD suspended our client and placed her on administrative leave, pending investigation, claiming our client violated District policy by failing to attend the Convocation and engaging in other misconduct. 

According to the lawsuit, other employees who were non-Black and/or had not engaged in protected activity also failed to attend the Convocation but were not suspended or disciplined. 

The lawsuit states that on or about November 12, 2024, Defendant informed our client that she would not be permitted to return to work and that her contract as Principal of West Middle School would not be renewed. Our client remained on administrative leave for the remainder of the 2024–2025 school year. On or about June 30, 2025, CPSD terminated our client’s employment. 

This case is ongoing. For more information, contact attorney Nicole Matlock at nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been discriminated against, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Complaint Against Columbia Public School District appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

According to the lawsuit, our client began working for Cameo Consulting Group, LLC in or about September 2022. The lawsuit claims that our client’s work as a certified nuclear medicine technologist was integral to Cameo’s business. But according to the lawsuit, Cameo misclassified Plaintiff as a 1099 independent contractor rather than a full-time W-2 employee, allegedly in violation of the company’s own policies and the law.

According to the lawsuit, our client asked Cameo for clarification about her classification and Cameo’s compliance obligations. The lawsuit alleges that Cameo admitted in an email that our client’s 1099 classification did not comply with the law.

Following this, our client then contacted the U.S. Department of Labor to report the misclassification violation. The lawsuit states that our client’s communications with Cameo management and her report to the Department of Labor were protected activities, including the reporting of suspected legal violations and/or refusal to participate in unlawful practices.

The lawsuit alleges that after the violation was reported, Cameo’s conduct toward our client changed sharply. According to the lawsuit, by April 2025, our client was instructed to limit her hours to 20 hours per week, substantially reducing her compensation and materially changing the terms and conditions of her work. 

On or about June 13, 2025, our client filed for unemployment due to the reduction in her hours and resulting loss of income. The lawsuit states that Cameo opposed our client’s initial unemployment claim and falsely claimed that our client was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she was an independent contractor.

The lawsuit states that on or about July 25, 2025, Cameo sent our client a termination email that misleadingly claimed she resigned. 

The lawsuit alleges that after her termination, our client updated her unemployment claim, which Cameo also opposed, allegedly falsely claiming our client quit her employment with Cameo. Our client prevailed in the unemployment appeal hearing. But, according to the lawsuit, Cameo’s actions in mischaracterizing our client’s separation as a resignation were part of an ongoing effort to retaliate against our client, to conceal or minimize wrongdoing, and to interfere with her rights.

According to the lawsuit, after her termination, Cameo hired a male certified nuclear medicine technologist who was paid at a rate approximately 28% higher than the wage Cameo represented to our client as the maximum allowable W-2 rate. The lawsuit alleges that the male certified nuclear medicine technologist had 10 fewer years of experience than our client and no prior VA experience. 

The lawsuit continues: 

“Defendant’s disparate treatment and shifting explanations further support the stated reasons for reducing Plaintiff’s hours, removing her from the assignment, and labeling her as having resigned were pretextual. On or about September 19, 2025, Cameo paid Plaintiff $13,815.31, designated as ‘retro/back wages and benefits,’ confirming that Cameo improperly classified Plaintiff as a 1099. This payment did not make Plaintiff whole for the value of two years of lost benefits, the full scope of back pay, or the retaliation and related harms Plaintiff suffered.”

This case is ongoing. 

For more information, contact attorney Sarah Jane Hunt at sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has had their employment rights violated, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Against Cameo Consulting Group, LLC appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The case was recently featured on St. Louis Public Radio.

The lawsuit alleges the school district violated Missouri common law and the Missouri Whistleblower’s Protection Act when it wrongly terminated our client’s contract. The complaint also alleges that a former vice president of the St. Louis Schools Board of Education defamed our client. 

According to the lawsuit, our client was placed on administrative leave on July 25, 2024, in violation of the terms of her contract, after she had uncovered long-standing failures within the district that had gone unaddressed for years, including her claim that the district owed almost $5 million in unpaid invoices. 

The lawsuit alleges that after our client reported this to the Board of Education, the district then wrongly placed her on administrative leave in violation of the terms of her contract and without providing her any explanation. 

The lawsuit also claims that during our client’s improper administrative leave, the school district terminated seven senior members of the school district administration with no notice.

The lawsuit goes on to state: 

“Defendant SLPS’s action in terminating members of Plaintiff Scarlett’s administration was intended to signal to potential witnesses that anyone supporting Plaintiff Scarlett could lose their job.”

According to the lawsuit, a former vice president for the SLPS Board of Education defamed our client by alleged she set salaries for administration employees at higher rates than she should have and without consulting the BOE. 

The lawsuit states:  

“Plaintiff Scarlett had numerous communications with the Board regarding salaries for the school administration during her employment and kept them informed of each action she took related to setting any salaries.”

On September 24, 2024, the district notified our client that it intended to terminate her employment “for cause”.

The lawsuit states that a hearing was then scheduled for October 14, 2024. But, according to the lawsuit, our client was also barred from accessing any of her school-issued devices or entering any school district buildings once she was placed on leave, thus making it impossible for her to access documents necessary to defend herself against accusations in the hearing.

That same day, the school district notified our client that her employment was terminated. The lawsuit alleges the district failed to properly terminate her under any clause of her contract. 

The lawsuit seeks judgment for lost wages and benefits, diminished current and future earning capacity, reputational damage, emotional distress, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any such other relief this Court deems may be just and proper.

This case is ongoing. 

You can read the lawsuit here.

For more information, contact attorney Nicole Matlock at nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has had their employment rights violated, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Employment Lawsuit Against St. Louis Public School District appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

According to the lawsuit, our client worked as a Puller Pourer for O’Fallon Casting from about January 2018 until the termination of his employment on or about January 30, 2024.

The lawsuit states that our client has the medical condition of migraines, which constitutes a disability under the Missouri Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The lawsuit also states that since approximately 2019, O’Fallon Casting approved our client’s intermittent Family Medical Leave Act time off work due to his migraines. Our client’s intermittent FMLA allowed him to take off work if he had migraines and was unable to work due to his condition. 

The lawsuit alleges that our client started reporting to a new supervisor in 2023, who told our client they needed him to work on days he was off from work. 

The lawsuit claims that on January 30, 2024, O’Fallon Casting terminated our client’s employment. 

The lawsuit also alleges that O’Fallon Casting has terminated one or more other employees who were utilizing FMLA since our client’s termination.

The lawsuit seeks wages and benefits of employment that our client has lost and is reasonably certain to lose in the future, and prejudgment interest on the same; for emotional distress damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of litigation

You can read the lawsuit here. This case is ongoing. 

For more information, contact attorney Meredith Berwick at meredith@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been a victim of discrimination, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Discrimination Complaint against O’Fallon Casting appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..