Cunningham, Jessica vs. Nova Psychiatric Services Doing Business as Prime Behavioral Health et al

Plaintiff Jessica Cunningham seeks damages against the Defendants, unpaid wages, late

payment of wages, and failure to pay overtime under the “Massachusetts Wage Act,” M.G.L. c.

149 §§ 148, 148B, and 150, M.G.L. c. 151 §§ 1A and 1B, Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit

and Promissory Estoppel.

Parties and Jurisdiction

Prime Behavioral Health is located in Quincy Massachusetts

Defendant Nova Psychiatric Services (“Nova”) is located in Quincy Massachusetts.

Nova Psychiatric Services is doing business as Prime Behavioral Health.

Miguel Savaria is a person residing in Massachusetts and working in Quincy

Massachusetts.

Alexandra Accardi is person residing in Easton Massachusetts.

Date Filed 5/8/2024 4:33 PM

Superior Court - Norfolk

Docket Number

The Defendant is an employer subject to Massachusetts Wage Act laws and are required

to compensate Plaintiff in accordance with the requirements imposed on employers

pursuant to M.G.L. ¢ 149 §§ 148, 148B, and 150 and M.G.L. 151 §§ 1A and 1B.

Jessica Cunningham is a person residing in Brockton Massachusetts.

Atall relevant times, Defendants Miguel Savaria was the Chief Executive Officer of Prime

Behavioral Health, directed the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, and had

management and control of decisions related to Plaintiff’s work including compensation.

At all relevant times, Alexandra Accardi, was the President, Treasurer, Secretary and

Director of Nova Psychiatric Services, the medical director of Nova Psychiatric Services,

and directed the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment including compensation.

Factual Allegation

Plaintiff filed wage complaints with the Attorney’s General’s office prior to filing this

Complaint and obtained authority to pursue this action.

11 Plaintiff began working for Defendant Nova d/b/a Prime (both parties hereinafter “Prime’)

in April 2021.

12 Pursuant to her employment contract with Prime, Plaintiffs was to be compensated by the

Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee.

13 Plaintiff's hourly rate was initially set at $26.44 per hour.

14 In January 2022, Plaintiff received a pay increase to $33.65 per hour. The increase was

reflected in a new employment Agreement (“January Agreement”) with Prime

15 The January Agreement also specified that Plaintiff would be treated as non-exempt

provider and would be compensated for “40 hours work week — pro-rated to hourly rate.”

Date Filed 5/8/2024 4:33 PM

Superior Court - Norfolk

Docket Number

16 Plaintiff was promoted in February 2023 to a Clinical Director position. The promotion

was reflected in a new employment agreement (“February Agreement”) with Prime that

specified that she would be provided a pay increase to a rate of $43.27 per hour as of the

date of her promotion.

17 The February Agreement also specified that Plaintiff would be treated as non-exempt

provider and would be compensated for “40 hours work week — pro-rated to hourly rate.”

Beginning on or about May 10, 2021, and continuing at various times through her

employment, Prime repeatedly violated the Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to timely

pay Ms. Cunningham all of her earned wages.

During her work for Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked overtime.

Other than on one occasion, Defendants never paid Plaintiff at a rate of time and half her

hourly rate for overtime work she performed.

COUNT I - MASSACHUSETTS WAGE ACT - M.G.L. c. 149 §148 — All Defendants

The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18

above.

Plaintiff was not timely paid for all of the hours worked for Defendant.

23 Plaintiff was regularly paid more than six days after the end of the pay period between May

10, 2021 and the date of this filing.

24, Defendant’s conduct is a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

25 At all relevant times, the defendants qualified as an employer under M.G.L. Chapter

149 and was subject to its provisions.

Atall relevant times, the plaintiff was an employee under M.G.L. Chapter 149 and entitled

to its protections.

Date Filed 5/8/2024 4:33 PM

Superior Court - Norfolk

Docket Number

27 Plaintiff has suffered compensatory damages as a result of Defendant’s actions.

Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149 § 150, Defendant is liable for treble damages, prejudgment

interest, plus costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

COUNT Il - FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME - M.G.L. c. 151§§1A and 1B- All

Defendants

The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-26

above.

Plaintiff regularly worked over forty hours in a work week.

31 Plaintiff was not paid at a rate of time and half for all overtime worked for Defendants.

At all relevant times, the Defendants qualified as an employer under M.G.L. Chapter

149 and was subject to its provisions.

33 Atall relevant times, the plaintiff was an employee under M.G.L. Chapter 151 and entitled

to its protections.

34, Plaintiff has suffered compensatory damages as a result of Defendant’s actions.

35 Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149 § 150, Defendant is liable for treble damages, prejudgment

interest, plus costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

COUNT IlI- BREACH OF CONTRACT -— Defendants Prime and

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 above.

37 Defendant contracted with Plaintiff to provide services in exchange for compensation.

38, Plaintiff provided the contracted services.

39, Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay Plaintiff the contractually agreed upon

compensation.

Date Filed 5/8/2024 4:33 PM

Superior Court - Norfolk

Docket Number

Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay Plaintiff for her services within the

contractually agreed upon time period.

41 Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’ breach.

COUNT Iv- UANTUM MERUIT- Defendants Prime and Nov:

42 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 39 above.

43 As an alternative theory to Counts I-IV, Plaintiff alleges that she performed valuable

services for Defendant, which were accepted and enjoyed by Defendant.

44 Plaintiff reasonably expected to be compensated for her work.

45 Defendant reasonably expected to compensate Plaintiff.

46 Defendant was unjustly enriched by failing to fully compensate Plaintiff for her work.