AREVALO v. SELDAT DISTRIBUTION, INC., 3:16-cv-00712

Five former employees (Arevalo, Lemos, Yunga, Conce, Iturriaga) allege payroll and employment abuses by Seldat Distribution, Seldat Corporation, and CEO Daniel Dadoun arising from work at a Dayton, NJ location.
Plaintiffs worked in HR (one manager, others assistants); several worked overtime but claim they were not paid proper overtime rates—often receiving only $1 extra/hour for Saturday/overtime shifts.
Arevalo initially paid hourly, later salaried; others remained hourly. Plaintiffs allege they were non-exempt and entitled to 1.5× pay for hours over 40/week.
Arevalo complained to the DOL about unpaid overtime and payroll practices; three co-plaintiffs gathered payroll records and assisted her. Iturriaga also complained.
Shortly after the DOL complaint and internal complaints, Arevalo, Yunga, Lemos, and Conce were terminated; Iturriaga voluntarily separated. Plaintiffs allege the terminations were retaliatory.
After separation, defendants allegedly filed a lawsuit and made statements accusing Plaintiffs of theft; Plaintiffs assert these statements are defamatory and were made in retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unpaid overtime under FLSA	Plaintiffs: non-exempt employees worked >40 hrs/wk but were not paid 1.5× regular rate; payroll scheme intentionally deprived them of overtime	Defendants: (not pled in complaint) likely to argue proper classification, pay methodology, or that payments complied with law	Not yet decided — claim asserted in complaint
FLSA retaliation for complaining/assisting DOL	Plaintiffs: termination followed protected complaints and assistance to DOL; Dadoun participated in retaliatory firing	Defendants: (anticipated) will deny causal link or assert legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for termination	Not yet decided — claim asserted in complaint
New Jersey Wage & Hour / Wage Payment Law violations	Plaintiffs: state statutes mirror unpaid overtime/wage claims; seek unpaid wages and penalties	Defendants: (anticipated) will contest liability or applicability of statutory provisions	Not yet decided — claim asserted in complaint
CEPA/Wrongful termination and Defamation (NJ common law)	Plaintiffs: reported illegal practices (and alleged misuse of Arevalo’s identity); were fired and thereafter accused publicly of theft—malicious, false statements caused reputational and economic harm	Defendants: (anticipated) will assert defenses such as truth, privileged communications, or legitimate business reasons for suit/statements	Not yet decided — claims asserted in complaint

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
Barratt v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 144 N.J. 120 (1996) (discussing remedial purpose of CEPA)
Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Ed., 138 N.J. 405 (1994) (CEPA construed liberally to protect employees who report illegal workplace activity)