UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHERRY L. DUFFIE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 5:14-cv-14148 

 Hon. Judith E. Levy 

vs. 

THE MICHIGAN GROUP, INC. – 

LIVINGSTON d/b/a RE/MAX 

PLATINUM, a Michigan corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Raymond J. Sterling (P34456) 

Elisabeth A. Gusfa (P77273) 

Brian J. Farrar (P79404) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 

33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 644-1500 

rsterling@sterlingattorneys.com 

egusfa@sterlingattorneys.com 

bfarrar@sterlingattorneys.com 

 William E. Pilchak (P29545) 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 PILCHAK & COHEN, P.C. 

 3062 E. Walton Boulevard 

 Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

 (248) 409-1900 

 wpilchak@mi-worklaw.com 

 William T. Russell (P40062) 

 Co-Counsel for Defendant 

 6870 Grand River Rd. 

 Brighton, MI 48114 

 (810) 220-1370 

 brussell@selecttitleagency.com 

 / 

JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1489 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 20
2 

Jurisdiction 

1. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331 on 

the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claim in Count I because this action 

arises under the laws of the United States. 

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367(a) 

on the unjust enrichment claim in Count II. 

3. Jurisdiction is not contested. 

Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Defendant Re/Max Platinum violated the overtime provisions of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USC 207(a)) by failing to compensate 

plaintiff at the rate of one-and-one-half times her hourly wage for hours 

worked in excess of 40. 

2. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee because her primary duty 

was bookkeeping. 29 CFR 541.700(a). 

3. Defendant’s conduct was willful and therefore allows plaintiff to 

recover unpaid wages for the period of three years prior to the filing of the 

complaint until her date of separation – i.e. from October 28, 2011 until March 

17, 2014. 

4. The defendant is liable for liquidated damages under the FLSA 

because it did not act in good faith. 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1490 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 20
3 

5. The defendant reaped an unfair benefit by failing to pay plaintiff for 

extra hours of work under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 

Defendant’s Claims 

1. As to Count I (FLSA): Defendant was not and is not required to 

pay Plaintiff overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff 

was subject to the Executive and Administrative Exemptions to the FLSA at 

all times relevant to Count I. 

2. As to Count II (Unjust Enrichment): Plaintiff was not entitled to 

extra pay for her time over 40 hours per week, and Defendant was not unjustly 

enriched because:

 Plaintiff was subject to the Executive and Administrative 

Exemptions to the FLSA at all times relevant to Count II; 

 If Defendant had an obligation to pay Plaintiff for her time over 40 

hours in one week, Plaintiff had a remedy at law under the FLSA 

(to obtain time and one half overtime, more than the straight time 

sought in Count II), and cannot invoke equitable relief. Kingsley 

Associates v Moll Plasticrafters, 65 F.3d 498, 506 (6th Cir., 1995); 

Tkachik v. Mandeville, 487 Mich. 38, 45 (2010): “In its sound 

discretion, [a] Court may grant equitable relief "[w]here a legal 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1491 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 20
4 

remedy is not available[.]" citing Powers v Fisher, 279 Mich 442, 

448; 272 NW 737 (1937). 

 Plaintiff’s common-law, equitable claim seeking wages paid beyond 

40 hours per week is pre-empted by the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, (4th Cir. 2007); DeSilva v. 

N. Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 497, 512-

13 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., 732 F. 

Supp. 2d 243, 263 (W.D.N.Y. 2010); Pacheco v. Boar's Head 

Provisions Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30463 (WD Mich., 2010) 

(attached to Defendant’s summary judgment brief). 

Stipulation of Facts 

1. Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant. 

2. Defendant is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of 

business in Brighton, Michigan. 

3. Defendant does business as Re/Max Platinum. 

4. Defendant is an “employer” as defined by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 USC 203(d). 

5. In 2008, Re/Max Platinum Home Stars, Inc. merged with The 

Michigan Group, Inc. – Livingston (d/b/a Re/Max Platinum). 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1492 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 20
5 

6. Defendant became plaintiff’s employer in 2008 as a result of the 

merger. 

7. Defendant paid Plaintiff exactly $52,000 in calendar year 2011. 

8. Defendant paid Plaintiff exactly $52,000 in calendar year 2012. 

9. Defendant paid Plaintiff exactly $52,000 in calendar year 2013. 

10. Defendant paid Plaintiff gross compensation of $2000 for a two 

week pay period for the following sequential paydays: 

a. January 6, 2014; 

b. January 20, 2014; 

c. February 3, 2014; 

d. February 17, 2014. 

11. Plaintiff’s employment with defendant ended on March 17, 2014. 

12. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on October 28, 2014. 

Issues of Fact to be Litigated 

 Plaintiff’s issues of fact 

1. Whether plaintiff “managed” the employer’s “enterprise” or its 

subdivisions. 

2. Whether plaintiff’s primary duty includes interviewing, selecting, 

and training employees. 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1493 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 20
6 

3. Whether plaintiff had authority to set and adjust rates of pay or 

hours of work. 

4. Whether plaintiff directed or planned work, or just coordinated

routine tasks for efficiency purposes. 

5. Whether plaintiff devised executive techniques. 

6. Whether plaintiff’s primary duty was disciplining employees. 

7. Whether plaintiff’s primary duty was controlling defendant’s 

budget. 

8. Whether plaintiff implemented and monitored legal compliance 

measures. 

9. Whether plaintiff customarily and regularly directed the work of 

others. 

10. Whether Joseph C. DeKroub Jr. is the owner or co-owner of 

Re/Max Platinum; Michigan United Mortgage, LLC; Select Title Company; 

LaVita Bistro, LLC; D & D Real Estate, LLC; Livingston County 

Investments, Inc.; 1st Choice Builders, Inc.; Lake Wallaby Limited 

Partnership; Putnam Meadows; and Joe’s Game Ranch, LLC. 

11. Whether Jennie Steudle was plaintiff’s supervisor from October 

2010 to March 2014. 

12. Whether plaintiff made hiring and firing recommendations. 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1494 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 20
7 

13. Whether plaintiff exercised discretion and independent judgment. 

14. Whether plaintiff formulated or interpreted policies. 

15. Whether plaintiff carried out major assignments. 

16. Whether plaintiff could bind the defendant on matters of 

significance. 

17. Whether plaintiff provided consultation or expert advice. 

18. Whether plaintiff represented the company in handling 

complaints, arbitrating disputes, or resolving grievances. 

19. Whether plaintiff’s primary duty was directly related to managing 

or running the business. 

20. Whether plaintiff was classified as an hourly employee. 

21. Whether plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours a week. 

22. Whether defendant was aware that plaintiff was working in excess 

of 40 hours a week and was not compensated for it. 

23. Whether plaintiff was an hourly or salaried employee. 

24. Whether defendant stopped compensating plaintiff for any hours 

worked in excess of 40 hours per week in February 2009. 

25. Whether plaintiff is owed the reasonable value of her services for 

her extra hours worked under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 

Defendant’s issues of fact 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1495 Filed 01/07/16 Page 7 of 20
8 

1. Whether, and to which extent Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 

hours per week. 

2. Whether Plaintiff was subject to the Executive Exemption from 

overtime, because: 

a. She was paid on a salary basis; 

b. her primary duty was management of a customarily 

recognized department or subdivision of Defendant; 

c. Plaintiff customarily and regularly directed the work of two 

or more other employees; and 

d. Plaintiff’s suggestions and recommendations as to the 

hiring, firing or any other change of status of other 

employees were given particular weight. 

3. Whether Plaintiff was subject to the Administrative Exemption 

from overtime, because: 

a. She was paid on a salary basis; 

b. Her primary duty was the performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to the management or general 

business operations of Defendant; and 

c. Her primary duty included the exercise of discretion and 

independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1496 Filed 01/07/16 Page 8 of 20
9 

5. If a violation of the FLSA is found, whether Defendant willfully 

violated the FLSA. 

Issues of Law to be Litigated 

Plaintiff’s issues of law 

1. Whether plaintiff was an exempt employee under the FLSA’s 

“executive” exemption. 29 CFR 541.100(a). 

2. Whether plaintiff was an exempt employee under the FLSA’s 

“administrative” exemption. 29 CFR 541.200(a). 

3. Whether the defendant willfully violated the FLSA. See 29 USC § 

255(a); McLaughlin v Richland Shoe Co, 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988) (a violation is 

willful if “the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter 

of whether its conduct was prohibited by the [FLSA]”). 

4. Whether the plaintiff is owed liquidated damages because the 

defendant did not act in good faith. See 29 USC § 260(c); Martin v Ind Mich 

Power Co, 381 F3d 574, 584 (6th Cir 2004) (“if an employer demonstrates both

good faith and reasonable grounds for the incorrect classification, then a court 

may exercise its discretion to limit or deny liquidated damages”). 

 Defendant’s issues of law 

1. Whether Plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law under the FLSA 

so that Plaintiff may not resort to the equitable remedy of Quantum 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1497 Filed 01/07/16 Page 9 of 20
10 

Meruit/Unjust Enrichment. Kingsley Associates v Moll Plasticrafters, 65 F.3d 498, 

506 (6th Cir 1995). 

2. Whether there is any legitimate question of fact but that Plaintiff 

was subject to the Executive or Administrative exemptions under the FLSA. 

Evidence Problems Likely to Arise at Trial 

 Defendant filed motions in limine that are pending before this Court. 

Plaintiff is not aware of any other evidentiary issues at this time. 

 Defendant identifies the following evidentiary issues included in its 

motion in limine: 

1. Whether Plaintiff should be precluded from introducing evidence 

of the property values of real estate sold by customers using Defendant as their 

realtor as reported by Crains Detroit Business, under FRE 401, 402 And 403. 

2. Whether Plaintiff may introduce evidence of the salaries of other 

managers, Including Kandis Thompson, under FRE 402 & 403, given the fact 

that Plaintiff’s salary was greatly in excess of the amount required by statute, 

and 29 CFR §541.700(a) states the relevant comparison is “the relationship 

between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the 

kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.” 

3. Whether Plaintiff may introduce evidence of her separation, since 

the parties differ on whether she resigned or was fired, the separation is not 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1498 Filed 01/07/16 Page 10 of 20
11 

relevant to any count of the Complaint, and Plaintiff conceded in her motion 

in limine that the only relevance is “credibility” on a fact not otherwise in 

dispute. 

Witnesses

Plaintiff will call 

1. Joseph DeKroub – Owner, President of defendant company 

2. Sherry Duffie – Plaintiff 

Plaintiff may call 

3. Jennie Stuedle – Employee of defendant 

4. Kandis Thompson – Employee of defendant 

5. Rachel Ureche – Employee of defendant 

6. Darin Ureche – Employee of defendant 

7. Al Wicke – Former employee of defendant 

8. Ken Durrant – Former employee of defendant 

Defendant will call

1. Sherry Duffie (personally or by deposition excerpts) 

2. Jennie Stuedle 

3. Kandis Thompson 

4. Erica Hahn 

5. Joseph Dekroub 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1499 Filed 01/07/16 Page 11 of 20
12 

Defendant may call 

6. Valery J. Kruczynski

7. Dawn Burke

8. Pamela Shearer 

9. Tania Maples 

10. Pamela Heikkila 

11. Tiffany Richards-Payne

Exhibits 

Plaintiff’s exhibits 

P-1 Re/Max Platinum Management and Staff List- Defendant objects on the 

basis of foundation. 

P-2 Payroll Item Detail from January 2011 to December 2014 

P-3 Employee Earnings Summary from 1/1/2014 to 3/17/2014 

P-4 Erica Hahn e-mails to plaintiff and Jennie Steudle from 2011 to 2012 

P-5 Selection of e-mails reflecting plaintiff’s job duties from 2011-2014 

(Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

P-6 11/5/2012 e-mail from plaintiff to S. Kuehnl re: profile forms and 

payment (Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

P-7 8/15/2013 e-mail from plaintiff to D. Medford re: DeKroub’s credit card 

(Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

P-8 1/17/2014 e-mail from plaintiff to S. Cusick re: contract signatures- 

(Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

P-9 5/4/2012 e-mail chain from plaintiff to J. Steudle re: Erica Hahn’s 

absences (Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1500 Filed 01/07/16 Page 12 of 20
13 

P-10 Kandis Thompson’s employee notes re: Kruczynski termination

(Defendant objects on the basis of relevance and foundation) 

P-11 Compilations of e-mails sent during plaintiff’s overtime hours 

P-12 Complaint and Answer 

P-13 Plaintiff’s paystubs 

P-14 Plaintiff’s damages calculations (Defendant objects on the basis of relevance 

and foundation) 

Defendant’s exhibits

Trial 

Exhibit 

Number

Plaintiff’s

Bates No. or 

Deposition 

Exhibit No. 

Defendant’s 

Bates No. or 

Deposition 

Exhibit No.

Description

1. a 2007 Calendar 

b 2008 Calendar

c 2009 Calendar

d 2010 Calendar

e 2011 Calendar

f 2012 Calendar

g 2013 Calendar

h 2014 Calendar

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1501 Filed 01/07/16 Page 13 of 20
14 

2. Googlemap data (plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of 

foundation, authentication)

3. Arial photo 6870 Grand River, Brighton, MI 

(plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of foundation, 

authentication)

4. Complaint

5. Plaintiff’s Response to Requests for Admission

6. Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s First 

Interrogatories

7. Pl # 151 Plaintiff’s Resume (plaintiff objects – relevancy)

8. Plaintiff’s Linked In Page (plaintiff objects – 

relevancy)

9. Redacted Jan. 6, 2014 e-mail to Steudle 

[Impeachment only]

10. Pl # 6-10 Homestars Paystubs

11. Pl # 11-19 MI-Group Paystubs

12. Christian Science Monitor Recession Timeline 

(plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of foundation, 

hearsay)

13. a Def # 146-148 Office Personnel Policies- Salaried Personnel

b Def # 160-162 Office Personnel Policies- Salaried Personnel - 

Kruczynski

c Def # 143-145 Office Personnel Policies- Hourly Personnel

14. Pl # 183 Plaintiff’s 3/18/11 Time Sheet

15. Def # 156-159 Kruczynksi Time Sheets

16. Pl # 145 Re/Max Platinum Agent/Staff Phone List p. 2 

(plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of foundation)

17. Def # 1-3 Plaintiff’s 2011-2013 W-2 Forms

18. Def # 4-10 IRS/SSA Forms 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1502 Filed 01/07/16 Page 14 of 20
15 

19. Def # 519 IRS/SSA Form 

20. Def # 11 MI Unemp. Ins. Agency Quarterly Tax Rep’t 

(plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of foundation)

21. Def # 47-48 Letters to MI Unemp. Ins. Agency 

22. Def # 52 MI Unemp. Ins. Agency Fact-Finding form

23. a Def # 12-15 IRS Notice of proposed penalty

b Def # 16 Plaintiff’s letter to IRS

24. Def # 58-59, 

520-532

Eviction Paperwork (plaintiff objects – relevancy, 

lack of foundation, cumulative)

25. Def # 552-3 E-mail regarding preparation for audit

26. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp 9-12

E-mails regarding acquisition of software

27. Def # 198 E-mail to Felker and Hahn

28. Def # 511-12 E-mail chain Krucynski/Plaintiff regarding 

hiring

29. Def # 53 Payroll Change Notice

30. Def # 54 Webber I-9

31. Def # 66-75, 

86-87

Documents related to Craig’s list ad (plaintiff 

objects – relevancy, lack of foundation, cumulative)

32. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp 5-6

Zammit e-mail regarding Craig’s list ad

33. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

3

Clickner ad regarding open position

34. Def # 201 E-mail regarding pending checklist

35. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp 26-29

E-mail claim regarding disputing unemployment 

claims

36. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp 32-34

E-mail chain regarding paying brokers with 

corporations

37. Def # 234 Banking Procedures for Fenton and Ann Arbor

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1503 Filed 01/07/16 Page 15 of 20
16 

38. Pl # 215 E-mail regarding Tax ID numbers

39. Def # 228-9 E-mail to Renee Day

40. Def # 221 E-mail regarding Staff Meeting Reminder

41. Def # 226 E-mail regarding Dress Code

42. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp. 13-15

E-mail chain regarding commissions for 

incapacitated agent

43. Def # 483-86 How To Process a pending file

44. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp. 16-19

E-mail chain regarding agent dues

45. Def # 487-89 Input a File Into RMS

46. Def # 253-4+ 

original

Red Book of Law (plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack 

of foundation)

47. Def # 199 E-mail to Felker regarding collecting mail

48. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

47

E-mail to Durrant regarding Felker

49. Def # 200 E-mail to Hahn regarding changing broker fee

50. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

8

E-mail to Hahn regarding petitioning for rent 

increase

51. Def # 209-10 E-mail to Felker regarding Internet shut off

52. Def # 213-4 E-mail to Felker regarding correcting transaction

53. Def # 203 E-mail to Felker regarding transfer to general

54. Def # 211 E-mail to Felker and Kruczynski regarding 

transfer to general

55. Def # 205 E-mail to Felker regarding referral check

56. Def # 217-8 E-mail to Felker regarding contacting Fenton

57. Def # 207-8 E-mail to Felker regarding preparing checks

58. Def # 212 E-mail to Felker regarding preparing checks

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1504 Filed 01/07/16 Page 16 of 20
17 

59. Def # 204 E-mail to Felker regarding return of license

60. Def # 197 E-mail to Hahn regarding requested dates

61. Def # 202 E-mail to Webster regarding “We need you in 

Brighton”

62. Def # 222 E-mail to Webber regarding mistake

63. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

40

E-mail to Webber regarding mistake

64. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

7

E-mail to Webster regarding mistake

65. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

21

E-mail to Steudle regarding Gallagher

66. Def # 139-141 E-mail Chain- Third Request for Update

67. Def # 215-6 E-mail to Felker regarding payment of vendor

68. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

35

E-mail regarding payment of DTE

69. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

41

E-mail regarding payment of vendor

70. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

42

E-mail regarding payment of credit card

71. Def # 219-20 E-mail to Vendor regarding payment

72. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

22

E-mail regarding training class for administrators

73. Thompson 

Dep Ex 6

E-mail regarding training materials

74. Pl Dep Ex 4, 

pp 24-5

E-mail regarding training new staff.

75. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

37-8

E-mail chain with UHY

 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1505 Filed 01/07/16 Page 17 of 20
18 

76. Def # 558-77 E-mail chains regarding Towle Financial 

Services

77. Pl Dep Ex 4, p 

36

E-mail regarding auditing account

78. Def # 193-196 Trial Balance (plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of 

foundation)

79. Plaintiff’s Second Document Request (plaintiff 

objects – generic)

80. Steudle Dep 

Ex 7 

E-mails to or about Durrant

81. Def # 587-616 Summary Exhibit Daily Activity Shown in 

Audit Trails & Staff Activity Reports Requested 

By Plaintiff (plaintiff objects – relevancy, lack of 

foundation, authentication)

82. Def # 39-46 Payroll Item Detail

83. E-mails regarding time off (plaintiff objects – 

generic)

84. Dekroub 

Dep Ex 6

Dekroub letter to agents

85. Def # 554-555 Kruczynksi Declaration (impeachment only)

86. Def # 556-557 Hahn Declaration (impeachment only)

87. Steudle 

Dep Ex 32 Felker Declaration (impeachment only)

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1506 Filed 01/07/16 Page 18 of 20
19 

Damages 

 Plaintiff’s damages total $166,750.00, plus attorney fees and costs as 

itemized and explained below:

Rates 

Plaintiff’s hourly rate $25.00 

Plaintiff’s FLSA OT rate (150%) $37.50 

Plaintiff’s average weekly OT hours Before March 2011: 4 hours 

After March 2011: 15 hours 

Attorney fees and costs (to date) $180,000 

FLSA Damages 

Non-willful & no liquidated Non-willful & liquidated Willful 

Statutory Period: 

10/28/12 – 3/17/14 (72 wks) 

 (reduced to 68 wks for 

vacation) 

$37.50 OT rate x 15 hrs x 68 

wks = $38,250

Statutory Period: 

10/28/12 – 3/17/14 (72 wks) 

 (reduced to 68 wks for 

vacation) 

$38,250 x 2 

= $76,500

Statutory Period: 

10/28/11 – 3/17/14 (124 wks) 

(reduced to 118 wks for 

vacation) 

$37.50 x 15 x 118 x 2 

= $132,750

Unjust Enrichment Damages 

Only unjust enrichment 

damages 

(no FLSA damages) 

Unjust enrichment damages 

until non-willful FLSA 

damages begin 

Unjust enrichment damages 

until willful FLSA 

damages begin 

Statutory Period: 

2/6/09 – 3/17/14 (266 wks) 

(reduced to 256 wks for 

vacation) 

$25.00 x 10 x 256 

= $64,000

Statutory Period: 

2/6/09 – 10/28/12 (194 wks) 

(reduced to 188 wks for 

vacation) 

$25.00 x 10 x 188 

= $47,000

Statutory Period: 

2/6/09 – 10/28/11 (142 wks) 

(reduced to 136 wks for 

vacation) 

$25.00 x 10 x 136 

= $34,000

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1507 Filed 01/07/16 Page 19 of 20
20 

Trial 

(A) Jury or non-jury. Jury trial. The parties agree that plaintiff’s 

attorney fees and costs will be determined by the Court after trial if 

plaintiff prevails. 

 

(B) Estimated length of trial. The parties anticipate that the trial will 

last approximately 5-7 days. 

Settlement 

 Plaintiff has made a settlement demand and defendant has responded 

with an offer that plaintiff is considering. Both parties will be present in person 

for the January 6, 2016 pre-trial conference. 

 /s/ Judith E. Levy 

 HON. JUDITH E. LEVY 

Approved as to form and substance: 

 

By: /s/Elisabeth A. Gusfa 

 Raymond J. Sterling (P34456)

 Elisabeth A. Gusfa (P77273)

Brian J. Farrar (P79404)

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: December 30, 2015 

By: /s/ William E. Pilchak 

William E. Pilchak (P29545)

William T. Russell (P40062)

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: December 30, 2015 

Case 5:14-cv-14148-JEL-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.1508 Filed 01/07/16 Page 20 of 20