Ex-employee claims resort misclassified her role and withheld bonus after job reclassification
A former catering director has taken two Florida hospitality companies to court, alleging she was denied overtime pay and a promised sales bonus after a sudden job reclassification.
On October 20, 2025, Kaela Strelec initiated legal action in the Southern District of Florida against CCHI Singer Island, LLC, which operates The Singer Oceanfront Resort, and Davidson Hotel Company, LLC, its management partner. Strelec claims the companies misclassified her as exempt from overtime, failed to pay her for extra hours worked, and withheld a bonus after she resigned.
Strelec says she began working as Director of Catering at the Singer Oceanfront Resort on May 1, 2024. She describes her role as demanding long hours—often between 45 and 55 hours a week—managing event sales, client relationships, event execution, and staff supervision. Despite these extended hours, Strelec claims she was paid a fixed salary of $72,000 and was not required to log her time or clock in and out.
She alleges that, although classified as an exempt employee, her duties were operational and client-facing, not managerial or administrative. Strelec estimates she worked between five and fifteen hours of overtime each week from May 2024 through February 2025, totaling approximately 260 to 780 hours of unpaid overtime. She contends that her responsibilities did not meet the federal requirements for overtime exemption.
In February 2025, Strelec says she was reclassified as an “Overtime Eligible Manager” and switched to hourly pay. She alleges the reclassification was presented in a meeting without an HR representative present, and she was told she had to sign the new paperwork immediately or it would be considered a resignation. Strelec claims the companies justified the change by citing a “new federal law,” which she alleges did not exist.
The dispute escalated after Strelec gave her resignation on April 10, 2025, agreeing to work through April 27. She says she closed out the first quarter of the year with $242,569 in sales and added another $102,000 in her final two weeks. Her offer letter, she says, stated she was eligible to participate in a bonus plan with payout up to 35 percent. However, Strelec alleges that after her last day, the companies delayed submitting her Q1 bonus until April 28—one day after her employment ended—and then told her she was ineligible for the payout because she was not an “active employee.”
Strelec claims she was never given a written bonus policy, despite repeated requests, and that HR failed to provide any documentation about the new pay structure or bonus eligibility. She alleges the bonus process was secretive and that the timing of the bonus submission was intentionally manipulated to avoid payment.
She is seeking unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, the withheld bonus, and additional damages for what she describes as retaliation for raising concerns about wage practices. The case remains pending in federal court, and all allegations are as yet unproven.
For HR professionals, the case is a reminder of the risks that come with misclassifying employees, failing to document pay and bonus policies, and mishandling reclassification or resignation processes. The dispute highlights the importance of transparency, communication, and compliance in the workplace. As the hospitality industry continues to navigate labor challenges, this case may serve as a cautionary tale for employers.
