Robert E. McKnight, Jr. of Marek, Griffin & Knaupp in Victoria and I represent Natalia Ruiz, who says Convergint Technologies, LLC limited the overtime hours she was allowed to record and did not pay her for the overtime she worked beyond that limit. I serve as attorney-in-charge. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division, as Ruiz v. Convergint Technologies, LLC, No. 6:26-cv-00062.
We filed the complaint on September 24, 2026, as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is in its early stage. Convergint has not yet answered the complaint, and United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos has set an initial pretrial and scheduling conference for December 8, 2026.
Background
Convergint designs, installs, and services electronic security, building automation, fire alarm, and life safety systems.
Convergint hired Ms. Ruiz on March 17, 2024, and she performed her work from Victoria, Texas. She held the title Project Coordinator 1. In September 2025, Convergint changed her title to Teams Coordinator, and the complaint says her duties did not materially change.
Ms. Ruiz supported installation projects for Convergint's banking and financial customers. She ordered and received material for those projects, scheduled customers and installation crews, issued closing and warranty letters, and handled the financial support for each project from the time she received it until it closed. The complaint says she was responsible for more than 200 open projects at a time.
Convergint paid Ms. Ruiz by the hour for her entire employment. It classified her as non-exempt and paid her overtime on the hours she recorded.
What the complaint alleges
Convergint required its employees to enter their own working time, by category, in its timekeeping system. A Convergint time approver reviewed the submitted entries each week.
The complaint says Convergint's supervisors told Ms. Ruiz orally how many overtime hours she was permitted to enter. It says Convergint changed that number over the course of her employment and for some periods permitted no overtime at all. According to the complaint, Convergint never put the limit in writing, and it set the number according to how Ms. Ruiz's region was performing financially. Ms. Ruiz alleges that she worked the hours Convergint did not permit her to record and that Convergint did not pay her for those hours.
The complaint describes one example. Ms. Ruiz recorded the overtime she worked during the pay period of July 28 through August 10, 2024, and Convergint paid that overtime on her paycheck dated August 16, 2024. She alleges that on the Monday after that entry, at least three Convergint managers and supervisors joined a telephone call with her, reprimanded her for the number of overtime hours she had recorded, and told her she was not permitted to record that much overtime. Ms. Ruiz told them the entry showed the hours she had worked. The complaint says Convergint then paid her no overtime on each of her next eight paychecks, which covered sixteen consecutive workweeks from August 11 through November 30, 2024.
Ms. Ruiz alleges that Convergint knew she worked more hours than it permitted her to record, that it failed to keep accurate records of the hours she actually worked, and that its failure to pay her overtime was willful. She seeks the unpaid overtime and an equal additional amount as liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for herself and for the employees who join the case.
Everything in this section is an allegation from the complaint. Convergint has not yet answered the complaint, and no court has decided whether Convergint violated the law.
Who the collective covers
The complaint defines the collective as all hourly-paid employees of Convergint Technologies, LLC who entered their own working time in Convergint's timekeeping system and whom Convergint instructed to limit the number of hours they recorded, at any time within three years before we filed the complaint on September 24, 2026.
Ms. Ruiz alleges that Convergint applied a common practice to her and to these employees. According to the complaint, Convergint's supervisors set an oral limit on the hours these employees could record, and Convergint paid them only for the hours that limit permitted them to record. The definition in the complaint does not limit the collective to one job title or one Convergint office.
If you worked for Convergint
This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which means other Convergint employees whom the company paid the same way can join it by filing a written consent with the court.
You may fit the collective the complaint describes if Convergint paid you by the hour, if you entered your own time in Convergint's timekeeping system, and if a supervisor told you how many hours or how much overtime you were allowed to record, and if you worked more hours than you were allowed to enter.
The Fair Labor Standards Act lets a worker recover unpaid overtime for the two years before the claim is filed, or three years if the violation was willful. For a worker who joins a collective action, that period is generally measured back from the date the worker files a written consent with the court. A worker cannot recover overtime for weeks outside that period, so each week a worker waits to file a consent can reduce what the worker is able to recover.
Contact
If you worked for Convergint as an hourly employee and a supervisor limited the overtime hours you could record, call me at (512) 799-2048 or use the contact form on this site. Consultations are confidential and there is no charge for the initial consultation.
Douglas B. Welmaker Welmaker Law, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St., Longview, Texas 75601