A Florida roofer says he worked 60 hours a week for Ultrack Construction and was fired after pressing the company for overtime pay. The proposed federal case, filed in Florida on October 8, seeks unpaid wages and damages over his four months on the job. The allegations have not been tested in court.
- Alleged schedule
- 60 hours a week, six days a week
- Alleged hourly rate
- $20 an hour
- Case filed
- October 8, 2026
A 60 hour schedule at $20 an hour
The roofer’s proposed collective action says he worked from 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with a one hour lunch break. At a set rate of $20 an hour, that schedule amounted to 60 hours of work each week, according to HR Dive’s report on the filing. The case names Ultrack Construction, a Florida company that the report describes as now defunct.
The plaintiff says he was paid in cash and did not receive pay statements showing his hours. He alleges that after he complained to the owner about missing overtime, he was told that “no one pays overtime in construction work.” The complaint says he was fired shortly after raising the issue again. He worked for the company for about four months.
Federal rules cover blue collar construction work
The Labor Department’s guidance on blue collar workers says covered, nonmanagement construction employees are generally entitled to overtime, regardless of how highly paid they are. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most covered workers must receive at least time and a half their regular rate for hours above 40 in a workweek. The law contains exemptions for some executive, administrative, professional and outside sales jobs, but manual construction work is not exempt simply because of a salary.
That distinction matters in this case because the roofer says he was paid hourly and worked 20 hours beyond the federal threshold each week. He is asking for unpaid overtime for those hours, damages for alleged retaliation, liquidated damages and attorney fees. The complaint also seeks to represent other roofers who worked for Ultrack during the past three years.
The lawsuit has not established what the company owes
The case is a proposed collective action, so the request to include other workers is not itself a court approved class or a finding that the company violated federal law. The allegations still need to be tested through the legal process. The report says the company is now defunct, which may also complicate any effort to collect a judgment if the plaintiff wins.
For now, the filing puts a concrete schedule and pay dispute before a federal court. The next question is whether the case proceeds on behalf of other workers and whether the roofer can prove that his hours, pay and dismissal violated the overtime and retaliation rules.
Primary source
Check the original source
U.S. Department of Labor is the source to consult for the underlying data, statement, ruling or live context.