A dispute over pay practices at a local construction company has led to a federal lawsuit alleging that a worker was denied overtime wages and misclassified as an independent contractor, potentially affecting how similar businesses compensate their employees. The complaint was filed by Rebel Knight on March 13, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Bayou Construction, Inc.
According to court documents, Rebel Knight claims that Bayou Construction failed to pay him overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked beyond forty per week. The suit states that instead of receiving proper overtime pay, Knight was compensated at his straight-time hourly rate for all hours worked, including those exceeding forty per week. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Bayou Construction did not compensate Knight for time spent performing post-shift duties such as cleaning tools, oiling equipment, and unloading company trucks—tasks which were not captured by the company’s automated timekeeping system.
The filing outlines that Knight was employed by Bayou Construction as a construction helper and laborer from around 2019 until October 2024. His work included sewer, water, and drainage repair tasks as well as general maintenance such as weed eating and hedge trimming. The document states that all of Knight’s work took place in Louisiana while he resided in Mississippi. Over his tenure with the company, his hourly wage increased from $10 to $19.50 per hour.
Central to the case is Knight’s claim that he was misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The complaint argues this classification was improper because “the economic reality of the working relationship demonstrates that Plaintiff was…an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA.” It details how Bayou Construction exercised control over Knight’s schedule and tasks: “Defendant dictated when Plaintiff was required to report to work each day,” provided all necessary tools and transportation via company trucks, set his hourly wage unilaterally without negotiation or opportunity for profit or loss based on managerial skill, and required him to wear a company shirt.
The legal filing further asserts that these conditions meet criteria established by courts for determining employee status under federal law: “Plaintiff simply ‘did whatever they told him to do.'” It adds that his position did not require specialized skills or independent business acumen but involved manual labor essential to Bayou Construction’s core business operations.
Knight also alleges systematic underpayment due to both straight-time pay for overtime hours and uncompensated post-shift work. According to the complaint: “Plaintiff was regularly required to remain at the shop performing…post-shift duties until as late as 6:00 p.m.,” resulting in “approximately fifteen (15) minutes to two (2) hours of uncompensated work per day.” These activities are described as integral parts of his job necessary for maintaining equipment readiness.
The suit contends these practices violate provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), which requires covered non-exempt employees be paid time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond forty per week. It also claims willfulness on Bayou Construction’s part: “Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its pay practices violated the FLSA,” referencing both knowledge of regular overtime hours worked by Knight and awareness that its GPS-based timekeeping system failed to capture all compensable time.
As relief, Knight seeks unpaid overtime compensation for all qualifying hours during his employment period at one-and-one-half times his regular rate (less any straight-time amounts already paid), an equal amount in liquidated damages under federal law, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest where allowed by law, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this action, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. Attorneys representing Rebel Knight are Charles J. Stiegler of Stiegler Law Firm LLC in New Orleans and William “Jack” Simpson of Simpson PLLC in Tupelo, Mississippi (pro hac vice forthcoming). The case is identified as Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00550.
Source: 226cv550_Rebel_Knight_v_Bayou_Construction_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Louisiana.pdf
