A group of drivers alleges that they were wrongly classified as independent contractors by their employer, resulting in lost overtime wages over several years. The complaint was filed on March 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Allen Matthew Bogar, Britten Wright, Otis Willingham, Marvin Lewis, Robert Hunter, and Donald Brooks against Willard Wrecker Service, Inc., Jimmy Willard, and Sherry Willard.
According to the court filing, the plaintiffs claim that Willard Wrecker Service employed them as drivers but classified them as independent contractors rather than employees. This classification allegedly allowed the company to avoid paying statutory overtime wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a collective class consisting of all persons employed by Willard Wrecker as drivers during the three years preceding the initiation of this action who were paid on a per shift basis without receiving an overtime premium.
The complaint states: “Willard Wrecker violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay Plaintiffs and the collective they seek to certify statutory overtime wages.” The plaintiffs allege that despite being labeled as independent contractors, they were economically dependent on Willard Wrecker for their livelihood. They further assert that Willard Wrecker exercised significant control over their work schedules, methods of work, compensation structures, uniforms, equipment provision, and client assignments—factors which they argue demonstrate an employer-employee relationship under federal law.
The document outlines how each named plaintiff was scheduled for long shifts—often twelve hours or more—and frequently worked well beyond forty hours per week. For example, Bogar claims he regularly worked at least 120 hours during weeks with ten shifts and at least 96 hours during weeks with eight shifts. Similarly detailed schedules are provided for each plaintiff. Despite these extensive hours worked, plaintiffs state they were compensated only at fixed per-shift rates (ranging from $225 to $300 depending on period and individual) with no additional pay for overtime.
The complaint describes that throughout this period “Defendants maintained and followed a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Collective overtime compensation.” It further alleges that Defendants knew or should have known about their obligations under Section 7 of the FLSA but willfully failed to comply: “Throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendants willfully failed to pay [plaintiffs] at one-and-one-half times [their] regular hourly rate for all time [they] worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any and all workweeks.”
Plaintiffs argue that none of them qualified for exemptions from FLSA’s maximum hour requirements such as administrative or executive exemptions or those related to outside sales or motor carrier provisions. They also contend that their duties did not involve interstate commerce within the meaning required by certain exemptions.
Beyond back pay for unpaid overtime wages owed under federal law, plaintiffs seek certification of a collective action so other similarly situated drivers can join in seeking relief. They request liquidated damages equal to unpaid wages as permitted by statute along with attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this suit.
The filing provides specific factual allegations regarding each plaintiff’s employment history with Willard Wrecker Service—including dates hired, roles performed (such as flatbed tow truck driver or forklift operator), shift schedules assigned by management, actual hours worked per week or shift period, rates paid per shift over various periods since 2015 or earlier (for some plaintiffs), and statements about defendants’ knowledge regarding wage laws.
According to court documents: “Throughout the Relevant Time Period…Defendants compensated [plaintiffs] at their respective per shift rates for each shift worked regardless of number of hours…[and] maintained operations in two Georgia locations.”
At present there is no mention in this portion of the document regarding responses from defendants or any judicial rulings; it is strictly a complaint outlining allegations made by plaintiffs. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01526-SEG. Attorney names are not specified within this excerpt.
Source: 126cv01526_Allen_Matthew_v_Willard_Wrecker_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
