A lawsuit has been filed alleging that a construction company imposed fabricated debts and withheld earned commissions from two former independent contractors, raising questions about employer conduct and worker protections under New Jersey law. The complaint was submitted by Anthony Boudierd and Ajit Singh Bahra in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2026, naming Omari Construction LLC, Rakan Omari, and Mohammad Ahmad as defendants.
According to the court filing, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the New Jersey Wage Payment Law as well as common-law rights by unlawfully withholding wages, fabricating a $700,000 debt against each plaintiff without evidence, and using threats to coerce continued labor under what they describe as oppressive conditions. The complaint states: “This action seeks declaratory relief, damages, and other appropriate remedies arising from Defendants’ creation and attempted enforcement of a fabricated $700,000 ‘debt’ against each Plaintiff.” Both Boudierd and Bahra assert that they were pressured into signing settlement agreements and promissory notes with harsh repayment terms—one day for Boudierd and thirty days for Bahra—backed by confession-of-judgment clauses allowing immediate legal action without notice or hearing.
The background section details how both plaintiffs began working for Omari Construction as independent contractors in 2025. Boudierd claims he was asked to relocate to Ohio at his own expense to help expand the company’s operations but later faced threats of arrest if he returned there. He alleges that after performing substantial work for the company—including generating sales—the defendants began conditioning payment of his earned commissions on his agreement to new contract terms unrelated to his job performance. In one cited message from defendants: “we will withhold payments on Friday,” indicating commissions would be withheld unless demands were met.
Boudierd further alleges that when he objected to these actions, defendant Rakan Omari responded: “The ‘checks you weren’t paid’ don’t exist,” despite payroll records indicating otherwise. The complaint describes additional actions such as unilateral reductions in commission rates without signed agreements and attempts to control personal transportation through company vehicles equipped with monitoring devices.
For Bahra’s part, he claims similar treatment after joining Omari Construction in October 2025. He was presented with settlement documents asserting a $700,000 liability for alleged breaches without supporting documentation or factual basis. Like Boudierd’s note, Bahra’s promissory note included a confession-of-judgment clause but required payment within thirty days. The complaint states these documents imposed “grossly one-sided” terms including mandatory five-year work requirements under threat of immediate enforcement of the alleged debt.
Both plaintiffs argue that these instruments are void due to unconscionability, economic duress, fraudulent inducement, violation of public policy—including prohibitions against forced labor—and lack of any factual basis for the claimed liabilities. They also allege that wage-related coercion extended beyond themselves to other contractors employed by Omari Construction.
The legal arguments outlined include breach of contract (for failure to pay earned commissions), imposition of unauthorized penalties not found in their contracts, violation of contractual terms regarding engagement duration (such as converting at-will or one-year contracts into mandatory five-year obligations), violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (including retaliatory withholding after resignation), unconscionability rendering certain agreements void, economic duress invalidating consent to signatories’ obligations under threat or pressure, fraudulent inducement based on knowingly false statements about debts owed or breaches committed by plaintiffs, and common law fraud stemming from systematic misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs seek several forms of relief: declarations that all settlement agreements and promissory notes are void; rescission of those documents; compensatory damages; punitive damages where permitted; treble damages specifically for wage violations under state law; attorneys’ fees; costs; pre- and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief preventing enforcement of contested instruments; and any other remedies deemed just by the court.
Attorneys Frank R. Schirripa and Finn W. Dusenbury (pro hac vice forthcoming) from Hach Rose Schirripa & Rehns LLP represent the plaintiffs in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-03144.
Source: 226cv03144_Boudierd_v_Omari_Construction_LLC_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
