Florida roofer files federal overtime lawsuit against now-defunct Ultrack Construction after alleged retaliatory firing

A Florida roofer filed a proposed collective-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on 8 October 2026, alleging that Ultrack Construction - a now-defunct Florida company - failed to pay overtime wages and fired him after he complained. The plaintiff, identified in the case Cedeno v. Ultrack Construction (case no. 8:26-cv-03065), estimates he is owed $6,800 in unpaid overtime and liquidated damages for roughly four months of work.

What the complaint alleges

The plaintiff says he worked a fixed schedule of 5 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with a one-hour lunch break - 60 hours per week - at a set rate of $20 an hour. He was paid in cash and received no pay statements showing his hours. When he raised the overtime issue with the owner, he was allegedly told that "no one pays overtime in construction work." He was fired shortly after pressing the matter a second time.

The suit seeks:

• Unpaid overtime for every hour worked over 40 during his four-month employment
• Retaliatory discharge damages
• Liquidated damages and attorney's fees
• Collective-action status covering any roofer or similarly situated worker employed by Ultrack over the past three years

Why the legal theory is straightforward

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered, nonexempt employees to receive overtime pay at one-and-a-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek^[1]. Blue-collar construction workers fall squarely in that category. The U.S. Department of Labor's own guidance states that workers in "production, maintenance, construction and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, construction workers and laborers are entitled to minimum wage and overtime premium pay under the FLSA, and are not exempt ... no matter how highly paid they might be."^[1]

The exemptions that do exist - for salaried administrative, professional, executive, and outside sales employees - do not reach hourly, hands-on tradespeople.^[1] A construction employer's belief that overtime is simply not paid in the industry provides no legal defence.

A pattern the DOL has pursued in roofing

The Ultrack case is not isolated. In January 2026, the DOL obtained a consent judgment requiring Phoenix-based Collum Roofing Inc. to pay $147,708 in back wages and liquidated damages to 61 roofers whose employer had withheld overtime, with the agency noting the violations were "particularly egregious" because the employer knew the law. Earlier, on 27 May 2025, the DOL recovered $594,313 in back wages and damages for 419 employees of a Florida modular construction firm found to have violated the FLSA's overtime provisions. Overtime violations account for nearly 80% of all FLSA back-wage violations, according to the DOL's Wage and Hour Division.

What to watch

The collective-action framing means the case could expand well beyond a single plaintiff if the court certifies a class of similarly situated Ultrack workers. Because the company is reportedly defunct, any judgment may hinge on whether the suit can reach individual owners or affiliated entities - a question the court filing, which names the owner of two construction companies, appears to anticipate. Contractors across Florida and the broader Southeast should treat the case as a reminder that cash-pay arrangements and unrecorded hours are among the most common triggers for DOL investigations and private FLSA litigation alike.