IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

________________________________________________ 

 : 

DANIEL WHALEY, individually and on behalf : 

of all others similarly situated, : Case No. 2:15-cv-12101

 Plaintiff, : 

 v. : 

 : Hon.___________________ 

 : 

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, : Class Action 

 Defendant. : 

_________________________________________ : 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Daniel Whaley (“Plaintiff”), through his undersigned attorneys, makes the 

following allegations against Henry Ford Health System (“Defendant”) concerning 

his acts and status upon actual knowledge and concerning all other matters upon 

information, belief, and the investigation of his counsel: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. On January 1, 1999, Defendant implemented HR Policy No: 5.06, 

System-Wide Personal Appearance Standards (“Personal Appearance Standards 

Policy”). See Policy No. 5.06 (Exhibit A). The Personal Appearance Standards 

Policy imposes specific personal appearance, grooming, hygiene and dress 

standards for all of Defendants’ employees and requires uniformed employees to 

perform uncompensated uniform care and maintenance work to meet these 

standards. This case seeks to recover wages owed for this unpaid work. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 34
2 

2. Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards 

Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”) and the Michigan Workforce 

Opportunity Wage Act, MCL 408.411 et seq. (“MWOA”), by knowingly suffering 

or permitting certain employees to spend “off-the-clock” time maintaining their 

work uniforms in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free condition to 

satisfy the requirements of Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy. 

Plaintiff maintains this work is integral and indispensable to the subject 

employees’ jobs for an array of reasons, including the fact that healthcare work 

places the highest priority on patient safety, infection control and fostering a safe 

environment in which sick patients can heal. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and 

1391(b) because Plaintiff resides in this District, worked for Defendant in this 

District, and suffered the losses at issue in this District, and because Defendant has 

significant business contacts within this District and the actions and actions giving 

rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. 

5. This Court has CAFA jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s state law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 34
3 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the State of Michigan who resides in 

Woodhaven, Michigan. From September 2003 to May 2009, Plaintiff worked as a 

full-time, non-exempt MRI Technologist at Henry Ford Hospital Main Campus, a 

Henry Ford Health System facility in Detroit, Michigan. In May 2009, Plaintiff 

was transferred to Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital in West Bloomfield, 

Michigan and continued to perform his duties as an MRI Technologist. In June 

2012, Plaintiff was transferred to Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital in Wyandotte, 

Michigan. In October 2012, Plaintiff was transferred back to Henry Ford Hospital 

Main Campus in Detroit, Michigan where he is still employed as an MRI 

Technologist. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed on a full-time basis 

and regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. At all relevant times, 

Plaintiff wore a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free uniform to 

work to comply with Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy and in 

keeping with his work as a healthcare provider. Plaintiff’s executed consent to sue 

form is attached hereto. See Consent Form (Exhibit B). 

7. Defendant is a not-for-profit corporation with corporate headquarters 

in Detroit, Michigan. During the relevant period, Defendant owned, controlled and 

managed a network of six hospitals and a network of health centers, medical 

centers, optometrist’s offices, emergency rooms and pharmacies that employ over 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 34
4 

23,000 people in the Metro-Detroit area. See 

www.henryford.com/body.cfm?id=37460 (visited May 12, 2015). Defendant owns 

or controls the facilities at issue, employs all individuals covered by Plaintiff’s 

claims and is responsible for promulgating and enforcing the patient safety, 

infection control and Personal Appearance Standards Policy at issue. 

MATERIAL FACTS

A. Defendant Adopted A New Personal Appearance 

Standards Policy For All Of Its Medical Facilities On 

January 1, 1999. 

8. On January 1, 1999, Defendant introduced a new, mandatory SystemWide Personal Appearance Standards Policy. See Policy No. 5.06 (Exhibit A). 

This Policy was intended to promote “The Henry Ford Experience” for patients at 

Defendant’s facilities by creating a uniform workforce appearance which 

“reflect[s] an image of competence and professionalism,” as well as helping to 

ensure “compliance in relation to infection control / safety protocols and other 

regulatory requirements of [Defendant’s],” and “engage employees in creating a 

healthy environment focusing on Patient Care.” Id., at 1 (emphasis added). 

Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy promulgated the same dress 

and appearance standard for: “all employees, students, volunteers, contractors, 

vendors, and others during workdays, weekends, and off hours who work at all 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 34
5 

Henry Ford Health System business units and locations when they are in their role 

as an employee of the System.” Id. (Exhibit A). 

9. The Personal Appearance Standards Policy generally requires 

Defendant’s employees to wear a uniform consisting of a cotton scrub top and 

scrub bottom in a specific color scheme depending on their position. Id., at 4

(Exhibit A). 

10. The Personal Appearance Standards Policy made it part of the job for 

all of Defendant’s employees to arrive at work each day wearing their assigned 

uniform, maintained in a “clean,” “neat” and “pressed” condition. Id., at 2 (Exhibit 

A). 

11. Defendant adopted the new Personal Appearance Standards Policy for 

a variety of reasons, including to: convey the professionalism and competence of 

employees; simplify its operational activities by providing a single dress and 

appearance standard; foster the important goals of patient safety and infection 

control; increase patient satisfaction with Defendant’s services; minimize work 

days lost to illness; avoid increased costs associated with replacement workers; 

avoid costs associated with hiring an outside vendor to provide clean, hygienic, 

stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free uniforms; encourage unity and camaraderie 

among its employees; and mitigate financial losses owing to nonpayment (by 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 34
6 

Medicare or other insurers) for extended hospitalizations or repeat admissions 

caused by hospital-acquired infections. 

12. Given the importance of infection control and patient safety in a 

healthcare setting, Defendant could not (and did not) eliminate the requirement that 

employees arrive for work in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free 

uniform. Adopting a looser uniform maintenance or appearance standard would 

have a significant impact on the safety and health of its patients and the 

profitability of its medical facilities. 

13. The Personal Appearance Standards Policy expressly acknowledges 

the link between a properly maintained uniform, professionalism, quality of care, 

patient safety and infection control by explaining that adherence to the Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy will “support the compliance in relation to infection 

control/safety protocols” and is intended to “engage employees in creating a 

healthy environment focusing on Patient Care.” Id., at 1 (Exhibit A). 

14. To further incentivize employees to wear a clean, hygienic, stain-free, 

ironed and wrinkle-free uniform to work each day, Defendant’s Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy provided that employees could be sent home without 

pay to change clothes or be subjected to progressive discipline, up to and including 

termination, for dress and appearance violations. Id., at 6 (Exhibit A). 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 34
7 

15. Defendant’s reservation of the right to issue such strict discipline for 

appearance and dress code violations supports the proposition that the uniform 

maintenance standards promulgated in the policy were an integral and 

indispensible part of its employees’ jobs. 

16. Although Defendant’s employees occasionally wore protective 

apparel during certain procedures, these disposable garments were permeable and 

did not cover the entire body. As a result, even when protective apparel was used, 

it was possible for employee’s uniforms to become soiled or contaminated with 

bodily fluids or infectious pathogens. Further, regardless of whether employees 

used protective apparel during certain procedures, it did not excuse them from 

showing up for work in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free 

uniform. (Exhibit A). 

17. Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy establishes a 

minimum acceptable level of dress and personal hygiene across all facilities and 

employees. 

18. Although Defendant caused its employees to arrive at work in clean, 

hygienic, pressed uniforms, it did not provide them with on-site access to laundry 

equipment, clean and press their uniforms “in-house” or contract with a vendor to 

launder and press their uniforms. As a result, the only option for Defendant’s 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 34
8 

employees was to spend several “off-the-clock” hours each week, either at home or 

in a laundromat, properly maintaining their work uniforms. 

B. The Importance Of Clean, Hygienic Uniforms In A 

Healthcare Setting Demonstrates That Uniform 

Maintenance Is Integral And Indispensable To The 

Class Members’ Jobs. 

19. Employment in a healthcare setting involves unique issues stemming 

from the need to maintain a clean and hygienic environment in which people with 

compromised immune systems and an array of medical problems – including 

communicable, infectious diseases – can heal. 

20. It is well-known that any healthcare worker’s primary charge is to 

“first do no harm” to the patient. For instance, nurses typically take the “Practical 

Nurse Pledge”—which is a modified version of the Hippocratic Oath that 

physicians take—and reads a follows: 

Before God and those assembled here, I solemnly pledge; 

To adhere to the code of ethics of the nursing 

profession; 

To co-operate faithfully with the other members of the 

nursing team and to carryout [sic] faithfully and to the 

best of my ability the instructions of the physician or the 

nurse who may be assigned to supervise my work; 

I will not do anything evil or malicious and I will not 

knowingly give any harmful drug or assist in malpractice. 

I will not reveal any confidential information that may 

come to my knowledge in the course of my work. 

And I pledge myself to do all in my power to raise the 

standards and prestige of the practical nursing; 

May my life be devoted to service and to the high 

ideals of the nursing profession. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 34
9 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightingale_Pledge (accessed May 12, 2015). 

Hence, nurses and other healthcare professionals have an inherent, intrinsic duty to 

do no harm to their patients, which unquestionably includes a duty not to spread 

infection through their clothing. 

21. Studies have shown that soft-surface fabrics like hospital scrubs can 

harbor bacteria. For instance, A study of hospital attire published in the August, 

2011 American Journal of Infection Control (AJIC) reported that more than 60 

percent of health workers’ uniforms sampled by researchers tested positive for 

pathogens, including the germs that can cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections 

and drug-resistant infections such as MRSA. See “Nursing and Physician Attire as 

Possible Source of Nosocomial Infections,” at 555 (Exhibit C). The researchers 

collected samples from the sleeves, waists and pockets of 75 registered nurses and 

60 doctors at a busy university-based hospital. Id. Half of the samples tested 

positive for one or more pathogens. Id. Potentially dangerous bacteria were 

isolated from at least one site on 63% of the uniforms. Id. Of these, 11% were 

resistant to multiple front-line antibiotics. Id., at 558. This contamination was 

found to increase over time. Id. The rate of contamination with multiple drugresistant organisms was 29% on attire changed every two days, compared with 8% 

on uniforms changed daily. Id., at 557. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 34
10 

22. A November 2011 study in the journal Infection Control and Hospital 

Epidemiology (ICHE), found that home washing machines do not fully eradicate 

dangerous hospital acquired bacteria like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus 

Aureus (“MRSA”) and Acinetobacter at lower temperatures. See “Effectiveness of 

Low-Temperature Domestic Laundry on the Decontamination of Healthcare 

Workers’ Uniforms,” at 1103 (Exhibit D). 

23. At 104o F, the temperature used in a typical home machine, the 

washing process killed MRSA, but not Acinetobacter. Id., at 1107. Laundry 

washed at 140o F was found to be free from both MRSA and Acinetobacter. Id. 

The study also tested the effectiveness of ironing fabric with a hot iron to kill and 

eliminate Acinetobacter and found this to be an effective intervention. Id., at 1105. 

24. The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and 

Epidemiology (“APIC”) is an international professional organization for infection 

control and prevention. Upon information and belief, the APIC Text (2005) 

established the following guidelines that emphasize the importance of garment care 

in the hospital setting: 

Contaminated textiles have been known to be a source of 

large numbers of pathogenic organisms. However, 

adherence to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) Environmental Guidelines1 and 

compliance with the mandated requirements in the 

Occupational Standards and Health Administration 

(OSHA) final rule on blood borne pathogens have proven 

to be effective in keeping the risk of actual disease 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 34
11 

transmission to either the patient or healthcare worker 

(HCW) negligible. This impeccable record also 

exemplifies the importance of the entire laundering 

process to render textiles safe and suitable for reuse. The 

key elements in the laundering process include water 

temperature, type of detergents, disinfectant (i.e., sodium 

hypochlorite [chlorine bleach]), rinsing, and finishing. 

25. Moreover, standard curriculum texts for nursing students include units 

on infection, prevention and control that expressly reference relationship between 

inadequate decontamination and infection outbreaks in a hospital setting: 

Decontamination is the collective term used to describe 

the three important physical processes of cleaning, 

disinfection and sterilization. Inadequate 

decontamination has been cited as being responsible for 

outbreaks of infection in hospital (Wilson 2006). 

See Peto, Rachel, Chapter 5, “Infection Prevention and Control,” excerpt from 

textbook Mallik, Maggie, Nursing Knowledge and Practice. (Exhibit E, at 96-97). 

 22. Following this theme, another nursing textbook emphasizes that 

“[d]isinfection and sterilization of contaminated or infected objects and good hand 

hygiene diminish and often eliminate microorganisms as potential sources of 

infection. See Chapter 27, “Asepsis and Infection Control,” from Taylor, Carol, 

Fundamentals of Nursing, 7th ed. (2011), at p. 668 (Exhibit F). 

24. Additionally, the American Medical Association (“AMA”) has noted 

concerns about the “textile transmission of infections,” namely the potential for 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 34
12 

infectious pathogens to spread by the casual contact that occurs between patients 

and healthcare providers in a hospital setting: 

Lab coats or scrubs can be the source of some serious 

bacterial hazards like MRSA," said Charles P. Gerba, 

Ph.D., a professor of Environmental Microbiology in the 

Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the 

University of Arizona. "When doctors or nurses lean over 

the beds of patients who are carrying organisms, their 

clothing can become contaminated. Hours later that 

bacteria can still be alive and passed on through 

incidental contact with other patients. 

Hospitals continue to make process and procedural 

improvements in an effort to reduce the number of 

accidents resulting from bacterial cross-contamination 

from dirty catheters and other equipment, but clothing 

has been largely ignored -- until now. 

See “AMA Weighs Infection Hazard Posed by Medical Clothing”, 

http://www.wthr.com /story/12681273/ama-weighs-infection-hazard-posed-bymedical-clothing (accessed May 12, 2015) (Exhibit G). 

25. Even as recently as May 27, 2015, APIC has been advertising the fact 

that “[i]n 2014, we had one of the most challenging years on record in infection 

prevention. Ebola was front and center, commanding an immediate, all out counter 

offensive to ensure that every hospital was prepared to identify and isolate a person 

with suspected Ebola. It’s now 2015, only five months into the year, and we’re 

already facing a measles resurgence in the U.S., deaths from listeria outbreaks, and 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 34
13 

contaminated endoscopes, while Ebola, though officially contained, continues to 

lurk in the shadows.” See May 27, 2015 APIC E-mail (Exhibit H). 

26. As explicitly or implicitly recognized by Defendant’s Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy and all these texts, Defendant’s employees’ duties 

put them in direct contact with a wide variety of infectious pathogens and bodily 

fluids on a regular basis. 

27. When such contact occurs, infectious pathogens can not only 

contaminate and survive on uniforms but, if left untreated, can rapidly multiply and 

transmit infection from the contaminated uniforms to patients, visitors, co-workers, 

and other surfaces in the facility. 

28. Recent examples demonstrating the extreme seriousness of the 

transmission of infectious pathogens include the MERS outbreak in 2012, the 

Ebola outbreak in 2014 and the Avian Flu outbreak in 2013-2014, all of which 

stemmed from the uncontrolled transmission of infectious pathogens, resulted in 

hundreds of deaths and were only controlled by world-wide mediation and 

prevention efforts. 

29. The failure to adequately control infection pathways in a healthcare 

setting creates both direct risks—like the transmission of infectious pathogens to 

previously-uninfected individuals—and indirect risks—like reduced productivity 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.13 Page 13 of 34
14 

due to employee absence, staffing and scheduling problems and financial losses 

resulting from non-payment for extended or repeat hospitalizations. 

30. For all these reasons, and others, Defendant placed the highest priority 

on patient safety and infection control throughout its medical facilities and paid 

very careful attention, both to the uniforms its employees wore and how they 

maintained these uniforms. 

31. For all these reasons, and others, Defendant could not possibly 

provide adequate patient care, ensure the safety of its patients and employees, or 

avoid the various risks and problems identified above without maintaining a policy 

that required its employees to show up for work in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, 

ironed and wrinkle-free uniform. 

32. For all these reasons, and others, the time Defendant’s employees 

spend to maintain their work uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and 

wrinkle-free condition is a necessary, inherent and integral part of their jobs. 

33. Additionally, the implementation materials for Defendant’s Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy stress that wearing identical, clean, hygienic, stainfree, ironed and wrinkle-free uniforms conveys a sense of professionalism to 

patients, prospective patients and their families, suggesting a strong link between 

Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy, its revenues and profitability. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.14 Page 14 of 34
15 

C. The Importance Of Ironing In A Healthcare Setting 

Demonstrates That Uniform Maintenance Is Integral 

To The Class Members’ Jobs. 

 

34. While the care labels on uniforms worn by Defendant’s employees 

provided “warm iron if desired,” this was not part of Defendant’s Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy, or the standard that applied to their uniform 

maintenance efforts. 

35. Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy and its 

implementing materials specifically provided that all employees had to show up for 

work each day in a uniform that was “pressed.” 

36. The words “pressed” and “ironed” are interchangeable when used in 

this context, and both necessarily mean that the uniform garments at issue required 

ironing in addition to the washing and drying process. Put another way, the only 

way to produce a “pressed” set of cotton hospital scrubs that would comply with 

Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy and reliably avoid discipline 

for dress or appearance violations, is to iron them. 

37. Ironing work uniforms is an integral part of Defendant’s employees’ 

jobs because, while the wash and dry cycles of residential laundry machines kill 

some infectious pathogens, the direct application of high heat from ironing is a 

very effective method for eradicating any pathogens that survive the dryer cycle 

where heat is applied only indirectly. See Exhibit D. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.15 Page 15 of 34
16 

38. Thus, by ironing their uniforms, Defendant’s employees were 

performing important job functions that included: fostering patient safety and 

infection control, conveying their professionalism and competence, increasing 

patient satisfaction with their services, increasing productivity by minimizing work 

days lost to illness, helping Defendant avoid the increased cost of replacement 

workers, helping Defendant avoid costs associated with hiring a uniform cleaning 

vendor and mitigating financial losses owing to nonpayment (by Medicare or other 

insurers) for extended or repeat hospitalizations. 

D. Defendant Knew That Its Employees Spent Time 

Maintaining Their Uniforms To Comply With The 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy. 

 

39. Defendant knew that its employees routinely spent “off-the-clock” 

time maintaining their uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinklefree condition because it was aware of the patient safety and infection control 

issues described above and promulgated the Personal Appearance Standards Policy 

to address them. 

40. Defendant knew that its employees routinely spent “off-the-clock” 

time maintaining their uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinklefree condition because its supervisors and managers routinely observed employees 

wearing uniforms that complied with the applicable dress and appearance 

standards. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.16 Page 16 of 34
17 

41. Defendant knew that its employees routinely spent “off-the-clock” 

time maintaining their uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinklefree condition because it did not provide them with laundry or ironing facilities or 

equipment during work hours or at their job sites or provide cleaning and pressing 

services through an outside vendor. 

42. Defendant knew that its employees routinely spent “off-the-clock” 

time maintaining their uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinklefree condition because its supervisors and managers were trained to instruct 

employees to meet this standard to comply with the Personal Appearance 

Standards Policy. 

43. Despite this knowledge, Defendant did not provide its uniformed 

employees with on-site access to laundry equipment, arrange to clean and press 

their uniforms “in-house” or contract with a vendor to launder and press their 

uniforms. 

44. Despite this knowledge, Defendant did not implement or enforce 

sufficient procedures to ensure that the “off-the-clock” time its employees spent 

complying with the Personal Appearance Standards Policy was properly tracked. 

45. Defendant did not implement or enforce sufficient policies or 

procedures to ensure that its employees were paid any wages for the “off-theCase 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.17 Page 17 of 34
18 

clock” time they spent complying with Defendant’s Personal Appearance 

Standards Policy. 

E. Complying With Defendant’s Personal Appearance 

Standards Policy Took Between Two and Three “OffThe-Clock” Hours Per Week. 

46. Plaintiff is personally familiar with, and was personally affected by, 

the patient safety, infection control, dress code and appearance policies at issue 

here. 

47. During the relevant period, Plaintiff worked as an MRI Technologist 

for Defendant in Michigan. Plaintiff generally worked at least 40 hours per week, 

not including time spent on uniform maintenance activities. See Exhibit I, 

Paystubs. 

48. Plaintiff wore a work uniform consisting of cotton scrub tops and 

bottoms of any color for each of his assigned shifts, and all extra or overtime shifts 

from 2003 to 2013. In 2013, Plaintiff began wearing a uniform of navy blue cotton 

scrub tops and bottoms. 

49. As an MRI Technologist, Plaintiff’s work duties regularly included 

direct contact with patients, visitors and other employees in Defendant’s facilities. 

Plaintiff’s job duties included: preparing patients for MRI scans, transferring 

patients from their beds to the MRI table, setting up monitoring equipment for 

intensive care unit patients, injecting patients with contrast dyes, handling patients’ 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.18 Page 18 of 34
19 

bodily fluids, ensuring patient safety, checking patients’ vital signs, monitoring 

them for changes in their overall health and behavior and providing other patient 

care. 

50. At any given time during the relevant period, Plaintiff owned about 

five pairs of cotton hospital scrubs, consisting of a top and a bottom. Plaintiff 

always stored, cleaned and ironed his work uniforms separately from his other 

clothes for infection control purposes. 

51. On average, because of his work schedule and the nature of his work, 

Plaintiff had to clean, dry and iron five scrub sets each week. Plaintiff typically 

spent about three hours once a week washing and ironing his uniforms. 

52. Plaintiff’s uniform maintenance routine typically involved spending 

about 5-10 minutes collecting his scrubs, examining them for stains, pre-treating 

stains as needed and placing them in the washer. Plaintiff’s washer cycle ran about 

60 minutes and his dryer cycle ran about 60 minutes. When Plaintiff took his 

uniforms out of the dryer, they were always wrinkled. To remove the wrinkles, 

Plaintiff took his uniforms to his bedroom and ironed them. It took him about 5-10 

minutes to iron each scrub top and 7-8 minutes to iron each scrub bottom. 

53. During the relevant period, Plaintiff has earned a straight-time rate of 

approximately $26.49 per hour and an overtime premium rate of about $39.74 per 

hour. Since 2003, Defendant has paid Plaintiff at an overtime rate for hours 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.19 Page 19 of 34
20 

beyond 40 each week, but has never paid any wages for the time Plaintiff spent 

cleaning, drying, or ironing his work uniforms to comply with Defendant’s 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy. 

54. For example, on average, Plaintiff spent three overtime hours per 

week performing “off-the-clock” uniform maintenance activities which would 

have cost Defendant $119.22 per week. If Plaintiff worked an average of 50 weeks 

per year, this work would have cost Defendant $5,961 per year. Over the threeyear limitation period provided by the FLSA and MWOA, Plaintiff’s uniform 

maintenance work would have cost Defendant approximately $17,883 (or $35,766 

under the FLSA’s liquidated damages provision). 

55. Had Defendant provided clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and 

wrinkle-free uniforms for its employees through an “in-house” laundry service or 

an outside vendor, Plaintiff could have used the three hours per week he spent 

doing this work in any manner he chose. 

56. From the face of the Personal Appearance Standards Policy, his 

discussions with managers and co-workers, and his observation of Defendant’s 

other uniformed employees during the relevant period, Plaintiff believes the same 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy applied to all of Defendant’s uniformed 

employees. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.20 Page 20 of 34
21 

57. Because it was an inherent part of their job and to provide a safe 

environment for patients, maintain a professional appearance, avoid discipline–and 

all the other reasons discussed above–Plaintiff believes that all of Defendant’s 

uniformed employees routinely spent 2-3 hours of “off-the-clock” time each week 

maintaining their uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free 

condition. 

58. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, its employees have been regularly 

deprived of wages owed for the “off-the-clock” time they spent maintaining their 

uniforms in clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free condition to 

comply with Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy. 

59. As a result of its conduct, Defendant has improperly retained money it 

should have paid as wages to its employees for time they spent maintaining their 

uniforms. By retaining this money, Defendant has received an inequitable windfall 

through, inter alia, reduced labor and operations costs and enhanced profit 

margins. 

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

60. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein. 

61. Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. 

§216(b) on behalf the following similarly-situated collective group: 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.21 Page 21 of 34
22 

All people who have worked as full-time, hourly, 

uniformed employees for Defendant in any workweek in 

the past three years who had direct patient care 

responsibilities and spent unpaid “off-the-clock” time 

maintaining their uniforms pursuant to Defendant’s 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy. 

Upon information and belief, this collective group includes, but is not limited to: 

Anesthesia Techs, Cardiac Techs, CAT Scan Technologists, CGNAs, CNAs, 

GNAs, Hospitality Aides, Interventional Technologists, LPNs, Mammographers, 

Medical Assistants, MRI Technologists, Nurse Aides, Physical Therapists, 

Respiratory Techs, Restorative Aides, RNs, STNAs and Ultrasound Technologists. 

Salaried and other exempt personnel are expressly excluded from this collective 

group. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this definition as necessary. 

62. Plaintiff is a member of the collective group defined above, because 

he worked as a full-time MRI Technologist for Defendant during the relevant 

period, had direct patient care responsibilities, was covered by Defendant’s 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy, and regularly spent unpaid “off-the-clock” 

time cleaning, maintaining and ironing his work uniforms. 

63. Although Plaintiff and the collective group members may have 

worked in different medical facilities, in different departments, or under different 

supervisors, this action may be properly maintained as an FLSA collective action 

because: 

(a) Defendant employed all of the collective group members; 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.22 Page 22 of 34
23 

(b) All of the collective group members were governed by 

the Personal Appearance Standards Policy described herein; 

(c) All of the collective group members wore the same 

uniform, namely cotton scrub tops and bottoms in designated colors; 

(d) All of the collective group members had to show up for 

each shift in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free 

uniform to make their jobs safer, more efficient and more productive; 

(e) Defendant expected all of the collective group members 

to place the highest priority on patient safety, infection control and 

professionalism; 

(f) Defendant maintained common timekeeping systems and 

policies with respect to Plaintiff and the collective group members; 

(g) Defendant maintained common hours of work, overtime 

and compensation policies with respect to Plaintiff and the collective 

group members; 

(h) Defendant maintained common payroll systems and 

policies with respect to Plaintiff and the collective group members; 

and 

(i) Defendant provided all of the collective group members 

with common training concerning patient safety, infection control and 

the Personal Appearance Standards Policy; 

(j) All of the collective group members regularly spent “offthe-clock” time complying with Defendant’s Personal Appearance 

Standards Policy; 

(k) Defendant did not maintain contemporaneous records of 

the “off-the-clock” time Plaintiff and the collective group members 

spent cleaning and ironing their work uniforms, or cause Plaintiff and 

the collective group members to maintain such records; 

(l) Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or the collective group 

members any wages for the “off-the-clock” time they spent cleaning 

and ironing their work uniforms; 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.23 Page 23 of 34
24 

(m) Defendant’s labor relations and human resources systems 

were centrally-organized and controlled and shared a common 

management team that controlled the policies at issue here. 

64. Plaintiff estimates that the collective group, including both current and 

ex-employees of Henry Ford Health System over the relevant period, will include 

several thousand members. The precise number of collective group members 

should be readily ascertainable from a review of Defendant’s personnel, 

scheduling, time, and payroll records. 

MICHIGAN CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

65. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein. 

66. Plaintiff’s MWOA claim is brought as a class action pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of a putative class defined as follows: 

All Michigan residents who have worked as full-time, 

hourly, uniformed employees for Defendant in any 

workweek in the past three years who had direct patient 

care responsibilities and spent unpaid “off-the-clock” time 

maintaining their uniforms pursuant to Defendant’s 

Personal Appearance Standards Policy 

Upon information and belief, this putative Class includes, but is not limited to: 

Anesthesia Techs, Cardiac Techs, CAT Scan Technologists, CGNAs, CNAs, 

GNAs, Hospitality Aides, Interventional Technologists, LPNs, Mammographers, 

Medical Assistants, MRI Technologists, Nurse Aides, Physical Therapists, 

Respiratory Techs, Restorative Aides, RNs, STNAs and Ultrasound Technologists. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.24 Page 24 of 34
25 

Salaried and other exempt personnel are excluded from the putative Class. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this definition as necessary. 

67. Plaintiff is a member of the putative Class defined above because he is 

resident of Michigan, worked as a full-time MRI Technologist for Defendant 

during the relevant period, had direct patient care responsibilities, was covered by 

Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy and regularly spent “off-theclock” time cleaning, maintaining and ironing his work uniforms. 

68. The members of the putative Class are so numerous, in the hundreds if 

not thousands, that joinder of all its members would be impractical. 

69. Any issues that affect individual Class members are overwhelmed by 

an array of predominantly common questions, including: 

(a) Whether Defendant employed the putative Class 

members; 

(b) Whether all of the putative Class members were 

governed by the Personal Appearance Standards Policy; 

(c) Whether all of the putative Class members wore 

materially identical uniforms, namely cotton scrub tops and bottoms 

in designated colors; 

(d) Whether all of the putative Class members had to show 

up for each shift in a clean, hygienic, stain-free, ironed, and wrinklefree uniform to make their jobs safer, more efficient, and more 

productive; 

(e) Whether Defendant expected all of the putative Class 

members to place the highest priority on patient safety, infection 

control, and professionalism; 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.25 Page 25 of 34
26 

(f) Whether Defendant maintained common timekeeping 

systems and policies with respect to Plaintiff and the putative Class 

members; 

(g) Whether Defendant maintained common hours of work, 

overtime and compensation policies with respect to Plaintiff and the 

putative Class members; 

(h) Whether Defendant maintained common payroll systems 

and policies with respect to Plaintiff and the putative Class members; 

(i) Whether Defendant provided the putative Class members 

with common training concerning patient safety, infection control and 

the Personal Appearance Standards Policy; 

(j) Whether the putative Class members regularly spent 

unpaid “off-the-clock” time complying with Defendant’s Personal 

Appearance Standards Policy; 

(k) Whether Defendant maintained contemporaneous records 

of the time Plaintiff and the putative Class members spent cleaning 

and ironing their work uniforms; 

(l) Whether Defendant paid Plaintiff or the putative Class 

members any wages for the “off-the-clock” time they spent cleaning 

and ironing their work uniforms; 

(m) Whether Defendant’s labor relations and human 

resources systems were centrally-organized and controlled and shared 

a common management team that controlled the policies at issue here. 

(n) Whether the Court should enjoin Defendant from failing 

to pay its employees for time they spend performing uniform 

maintenance work. 

70. Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims belonging to the Class 

members in that they all suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendant’s Personal Appearance Standards Policy and related practices. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.26 Page 26 of 34
27 

71. Plaintiff’s claim arises from the same policies, practices and courses 

of conduct as all other Class members’ claims and Plaintiff’s legal theories are 

based on the same legal theories as all other Class members. 

72. Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of the Class and 

has retained counsel who are qualified and experienced in the prosecution of wage 

and hour class actions under state law. Plaintiff and his attorneys do not have any 

conflict of interest with the Class members. 

73. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy, because, it is not economically feasible 

for each Class member to retain counsel for an individual lawsuit to recover the 

wages at issue. Moreover, prosecution of this case as a class action will eliminate 

the possibility of duplicative lawsuits being filed in other state and/or federal 

jurisdictions and minimize the Class members’ concerns about retaliation by 

Defendant. 

74. This case will be manageable as a class action. Plaintiff’s attorneys 

are well-versed in the management of complex class action cases and, after 

investigation into the relevant facts and circumstances, do not believe this case 

presents any particularly unusual circumstances that would render it 

unmanageable. Moreover, Defendant maintains computerized timekeeping and 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.27 Page 27 of 34
28 

compensation systems that will allow the issues in this case to be discovered and 

damages to be calculated with relative ease. 

75. Class certification is appropriate under to Rule 23(b)(2) because 

Defendant has both acted and refused to act on grounds that apply equally to all 

Class members and because of the propriety of declaratory relief in this case.. See 

Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431, 1437 

(2010) (“[b]y its terms [Rule 23] creates a categorical rule entailing a plaintiff 

whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action”). 

COUNT I 

Violation of the FLSA

76. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein. 

77. Defendant is an “enterprise” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and 

is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the 

meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A). 

78. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant “suffered or permitted” 

Plaintiff to work and thus “employed” him within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 203(g). 

79. Plaintiff and the collective group members are similarly-situated 

individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.28 Page 28 of 34
29 

80. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant was obligated to comply 

with the FLSA’s requirements, Plaintiff and the collective group members were 

covered employees entitled to the FLSA’s protections and Plaintiff and the 

collective group members were not exempt from receiving wages required by the 

FLSA for any reason. 

81. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) states that an employee must be paid an 

overtime premium rate, equal to at least 11⁄2 times his or her regular rate of pay, for 

all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. 

82. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) requires employers to keep all payroll records and 

time records for at least three years, including all basic timecards and daily 

start/stop times for each employee. 

83. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant violated the FLSA by 

willfully suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the collective group members to 

spend “off-the-clock” time maintaining their work uniforms in clean, hygienic, 

stain-free, ironed and wrinkle-free condition to make their jobs safer, more 

efficient and more productive without either tracking this time or paying any 

wages for it. 

84. Plaintiff and the collective group members have been harmed as a 

direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, because they have 

been deprived of wages owed for time they spent complying with Defendant’s 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.29 Page 29 of 34
30 

Personal Appearance Standards to make their jobs safer, more efficient and more 

productive. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for an Order: 

(a) Requiring Defendant to provide a list of the names, 

addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of the collective 

group members; 

(b) Authorizing Plaintiff’s counsel to issue an approved form 

of notice informing the collective group members of the nature of the 

action and their right to join this lawsuit; 

(c) Appointing Bryan Yaldou of The Law Offices of Bryan 

Yaldou, PLLC, Lance C. Young and Neil B. Pioch of Sommers 

Schwartz, P.C. and David Cohen of Kolman Ely, P.C. as counsel for 

the collective group; 

(d) Declaring that Defendant willfully violated the applicable 

overtime provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay all required wages 

to Plaintiff and the collective group members and granting an 

injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the FLSA 

on this basis; 

(e) Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the collective 

group members on their FLSA claim; 

(f) Awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff and the 

collective group members in an amount to be determined; 

(g) Awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and the 

collective group members equal to their compensatory damages; 

(h) Awarding all costs and a reasonable attorney’s fees for 

the work required to prosecute this claim; 

(i) Awarding any further relief the Court deems just, 

equitable and proper; 

(j) Enjoining Defendant against any further wage violations 

on the terms described above; and 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.30 Page 30 of 34
31 

(k) Granting leave to add additional case Plaintiff by motion, 

the filing of written consent forms, or any other method approved by 

the Court. 

COUNT II 

Violation of the Michigan MWOA

85. Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein. 

86. At relevant times, Plaintiff and all members of the Class were 

employees of the Defendant within the meaning of applicable Michigan wage and 

hour laws mandating the payment of overtime, including the Michigan Workforce 

Opportunity Act, MCL 408.411 et seq.1

 

87. MCL 408.412(c) defines “Employee” as: “an individual not less than 

16 years of age employed by an employer on the premises of the employer or at a 

fixed site designated by the employer....” 

88. MCL 408.412(d) defines “Employer” as: “a person, firm, or 

corporation... who employs 2 or more employees at any 1 time within a calendar 

year. An employer is subject to this act during the remainder of that calendar 

year.” 

 

1

 Michigan’s Minimum Wage Law, Public Act 154 of 1964, as amended, was repealed by the 

Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, Public Act 138 of 2014. Public Act 154 of 1964, Michigan 

Minimum Wage Law was effective from August 28, 1964 through May 26, 2014. Public Act 

138 of 2014, Workforce Opportunity Wage Act was made effective May 27, 2014. See

http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-61256_11407_59886_27909-40330--,00.html

(accessed May 12, 2015). 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.31 Page 31 of 34
32 

89. With respect to the payment of overtime, MCL 408.414(a)(1) 

provides that: “Except as otherwise provided in this act, an employee shall receive 

compensation at not less than 1-1/2 times the regular rate at which the employee is 

employed for employment in a workweek in excess of 40 hours.” 

90. MCL 408.419(1) permits civil actions to recover unpaid overtime 

wages, provides a three-year limitations period for such claims and provides for 

the recovery of liquidated damages and counsel fees and costs in such actions: 

If an employer violates this act, the employee affected by 

the violation, at any time within 3 years, may do any of 

the following: 

(a) Bring a civil action for the recovery of the 

difference between the amount paid and the 

amount that, but for the violation, would have been 

paid the employee under this act and an equal 

additional amount as liquidated damages together 

with costs and reasonable attorney fees as are 

allowed by the court. 

91. At all relevant times, Defendant was the employer of Plaintiff and the 

Class members within the meaning of the MCL. 

92. At all relevant times, Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and the 

Class members at least 1-1/2 times their regular rate pf pay for all hours beyond 40 

per week. 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.32 Page 32 of 34
33 

93. Michigan has not expressly adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 251, et seq., either through statute or common law, so Plaintiff’s MWOA 

claim provides relief above and beyond that afforded by the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for an Order: 

(a) Requiring Defendant to provide a list of the names, 

addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of the putative 

Class members; 

(b) Authorizing Plaintiff’s counsel to issue an 

approved form of notice informing the putative Class members 

of the nature of the action and their right to opt out of the Class; 

(c) Appointing Bryan Yaldou of The Law Offices of 

Bryan Yaldou, PLLC, Lance C. Young and Neil B. Pioch of 

Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and David Cohen of Kolman Ely, P.C. 

as counsel for the putative Class members; 

(d) Declaring that Defendant willfully violated the 

applicable overtime provisions of the MWOA by failing to pay 

all required wages to Plaintiff and the collective group members 

and granting an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to violate the MWOA on this basis; 

(e) Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the 

Class on their MWOA claim; 

(f) Awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff and 

the Class in an amount to be determined; 

(g) Awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and 

Class members equal to their compensatory damages; 

(h) Awarding all costs and a reasonable attorney’s fees 

for the work required to prosecute this claim; 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.33 Page 33 of 34
34 

(i) Enjoining Defendant against any further wage 

violations on the terms described above; 2

 and 

(j) Awarding any further relief the Court deems just, 

equitable and proper. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Dated: June 9, 2015 /s/Neil B. Pioch

Lance C. Young (P51254) 

Neil B. Pioch (P67677) 

SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 

 One Towne Square, 17th Floor 

 Southfield, MI 48076 

 (248) 355-0300 

Bryan Yaldou (P70600) 

THE LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN 

 YALDOU, PLLC 

23000 Telegraph 

Brownstown Twp., MI 48134 

(734) 692-9200 

 David J. Cohen (PA 74070) 

 KOLMAN ELY, P.C. 

 414 Hulmeville Avenue 

 Penndel, PA 19047 

 (215) 750-3134 

 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative 

 Class and Collective Group

 

2

 Although Michigan law has not addressed the issue, several other states (including Arkansas, 

Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Utah) afford such a remedy 

against continuing violations in their respective wage and hour laws. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. 

11-4-218(e)(1); Fla. Const. art. X, section 24(e) (for minimum wage violations); Mass. Gen. 

Laws Ch. 149, section 150; Minn. Stat. 181.171, subd. 1; 2010 N.Y. Slip op. 32166U, at *10; R. 

I. Gen. Laws 28-14-19.2(a); and Utah Code Ann. 34-40-205 (for minimum wage violations). 

Case 2:15-cv-12101-DML-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/09/15 PageID.34 Page 34 of 34