Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Audrea Mitchell

On behalf of herself and other 

members of the general public 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Independent Home Care, Inc.

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Case No. 2:17-cv-717

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OHIO LAW

Now comes Audrea Mitchell (“Plaintiff,” “Named Plaintiff,” or “Plaintiff Mitchell”),

through undersigned counsel, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public 

similarly situated, for her First Amended Complaint against Independent Home Care, Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “IHC”), for its failure to pay employees overtime wages seeking all available 

relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Ohio 

Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111.03, and 4111.08 (“the Ohio Wage Act”); and 

the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”), Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.15, and Ohio’s Recordkeeping laws, 

Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4111.08 and 4111.14(G) & (H) (the Ohio Wage Act, the OPPA, and Ohio’s 

Recordkeeping laws will be referred to collectively as “the Ohio Acts”). Plaintiff’s FLSA claims 

are asserted as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), while the Ohio Acts claims are 

asserted as a class action pursuant to Rule 23. The following allegations are based on personal 

knowledge as to the Named Plaintiff’s own conduct and are made on information and belief as to 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 108
Page 2 of 17

the acts of others. Named Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, hereby 

states as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, the OPPA, 

Chapter 4112, and 28 U.S.C. §1331.

2. This Court’s jurisdiction in this matter is also predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as 

this Complaint raises additional claims pursuant to the laws of Ohio, over which this Court 

maintains supplemental subject matter jurisdiction because they form a part of the same case or 

controversy.

3. Venue is proper in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Defendant 

employed Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated in the Southern District of Ohio, a 

substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District 

of Ohio, and Defendant has done substantial business in the Southern District of Ohio.

II. THE PARTIES

4. Named Plaintiff Audrea Mitchell is an individual, United States citizen, and 

resident of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio.

5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home health 

aide beginning in February, 2013 through the present.

6. As a home health aide, Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant

as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

7. During her employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff was not fully and 

properly paid for all of her compensable hours worked, including overtime, resulting in unpaid 

overtime wages for the three years preceding the filing of this First Amended Complaint.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 109
Page 3 of 17

8. Named Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of those 

similarly situated, and has given her written consent to bring this action to collect unpaid overtime 

and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA. Named Plaintiff’s consents is being filed along 

with the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). (Consent to be Party Plaintiff, 

attached hereto as Exhibit A).

9. Defendant Independent Home Care, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation with 

its principal place of business believed to be located, according to Plaintiff’s payroll records, at 

4040 E. Broad St., Suite 201, Columbus, Ohio 43213, in Franklin County, which is in the Southern 

District of Ohio. Defendant’s statutory agent address is 3954 Stapleford Drive, Columbus, Ohio 

43230.

10. During relevant times, Defendant maintained control, oversight, and direction over 

Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, including the promulgation and 

enforcement of policies affecting the payment of wages, including overtime compensation.

11. During relevant times, Defendant benefitted from the work performed by Named 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant operates and controls an enterprise and 

employs employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or has had 

employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in 

or produced for commerce by any person; and Defendant has had an annual gross volume of sales 

made or business done of not less than $500,000 per year (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail 

level).

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 110
Page 4 of 17

13. During relevant times, Defendant has been involved in the employment decisions 

of Named Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, decisions about Defendant’s wage and hour 

policies and practices that affect Named Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

14. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.

15. During her employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff Mitchell worked as a 

home health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other inhome services from approximately February, 2013 and is still presently employed with Defendant. 

She is paid on an hourly basis in the amount of approximately $10 per hour. Named Plaintiff 

regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and one-half her correct

regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for all hours she worked over 40 in any 

workweek since January 1, 2015.

16. At all times relevant herein, the Named Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant as 

defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.

17. Subject to the elimination of a previous companionship services exemption on 

January 1, 2015, the Named Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant as defined 

in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.

18. Defendant is and has been an “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA and 

the Ohio Wage Act.

19. During relevant times, Defendant suffered and permitted Named Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while not compensating them 

for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one-half times their overtime 

premium. At other relevant times, Defendant suffered and permitted Named Plaintiff and those 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 111
Page 5 of 17

similarly situated to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while not compensating them 

for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one-half times their correct 

overtime premium.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was fully 

aware of the fact that it was legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment laws 

of the United States and of the State of Ohio, as well as record keeping laws of the State of Ohio. 

21. During relevant times, Defendant had knowledge of and acted willfully in regards 

to its conduct described herein.

22. Defendant is in possession and control of necessary documents and information 

from which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.

23. Plaintiff neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two or more 

employees. Plaintiff could not hire, fire, or discipline employees.

24. Plaintiff’s primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion and

independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

25. Thus, at all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly 

employee entitled to overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek.

26. During the relevant time period, Defendant applied the same pay practices and 

policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff.

27. Since January 1, 2015, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have 

not been fully and lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked due to the 

aforementioned policies and practices of not paying employees the correct overtime premium for 

all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 112
Page 6 of 17

28. Defendant knew or should have been aware that Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek and were entitled to 

overtime premium based on the correct regular rate of pay, but it willfully elected not to fully 

compensate its employees since January 1, 2015.

29. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff resulted in unpaid wages, including overtime 

wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

IV.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.

30. Named Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of himself and all other Similarly Situated Persons (“SSPs”) of the 

opt-in class, consisting of:

All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant 

who provided companionship services, domestic services, home 

care, and/or other in-home services, who worked over 40 hours in 

any workweek beginning January 1, 2015 through the date of final 

disposition of this case (the “§216(b) Class” or the “§216(b) Class 

Members”).

31. Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class include, but may 

not be limited to: home managers, support associates, caregivers, home health aides, aides, and 

other employees who provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other 

in-home services for Defendant.

32. The 216(b) Class Members were no longer exempt from the FLSA as of January 1, 

2015. See FLSA of 1938, §13(a)(15), 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(15), (21); 29 C.F.R. §552.109(a), (c), 

552.6; Dillow v. Home Care Network, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-612, 2017 WL 749196, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 

Feb. 27, 2017).

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 113
Page 7 of 17

33. This FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation, compensation withheld in violation of the FLSA,

liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA. In addition to the Named Plaintiff, 

numerous putative 216(b) Class Members have been denied proper overtime compensation due to 

Defendant’s company-wide payroll policies and practices. The Named Plaintiff is representative 

of those other similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her 

own in bringing this action.

34. The identity of the putative 216(b) Class Members are known to Defendant and are 

readily identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records. These individuals may readily be notified 

of this action, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for the purpose of 

collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' 

fees and costs under the FLSA.

35. The net effect of Defendant’s policies and practices is that Defendant willfully 

failed to pay the correct overtime wages to save payroll costs. Thus, Defendant enjoyed substantial 

ill-gained profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiff and §216(b) Class Members.

B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.

36. Named Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursue to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as a 

class action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following class:

All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant 

who provided companionship services, domestic services, home 

care, and/or other in-home services, who worked over 40 hours in 

any workweek beginning January 1, 2015 through the date of final 

disposition of this case (the “Ohio Rule 23 Class” or “Ohio Rule 23 

Class Members”)

37. Examples of employees that may be members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, 

but may not be limited to: home managers, support associates, caregivers, home health aides, aides, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 114
Page 8 of 17

and other employees who provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and 

other in-home services for Defendant.

38. The Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were no longer exempt from the FLSA as of 

January 1, 2015. See FLSA of 1938, §13(a)(15), 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(15), (21); 29 C.F.R. 

§552.109(a), (c), 552.6; Dillow v. Home Care Network, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-612, 2017 WL 749196, 

at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2017).

39. During relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than forty 

(40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of at least one and one-half 

times their correct regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 because of Defendant’s 

policies or practices.

40. The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable.

41. Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and her claims for unpaid 

overtime wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.

42. Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and 

the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.

43. Named Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those 

interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that she has undertaken to represent.

44. Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who 

can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.

45. Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 115
Page 9 of 17

46. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual 

actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant with respect to its non-exempt employees.

47. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant jointly 

acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making 

appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 

Class as a whole.

48. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of 

law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual 

members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available 

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.

49. Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but 

are not limited to: (a) whether Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio 

Rule 23 Class one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty 

hours per week; (b) whether Defendant kept accurate records of the amount of time the Ohio Rule 

23 Class was working each day; (c) whether Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Act were 

knowing and willful; (d) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld compensation, including overtime 

compensation, is due to the Named Plaintiff and other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on 

account of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Acts; and (e) what amount of prejudgment interest 

is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class members on the overtime or other compensation which was withheld 

or not paid to them.

50. A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of Named Plaintiff’s and the Ohio Rule 23 Class’ claims and will prevent undue financial, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 116
Page 10 of 17

administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiff and counsel 

are not aware of any pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined herein, 

or on behalf of any individual alleging a similar claim. Because the damages sustained by 

individual members are modest compared to the costs of individual litigation, it would be 

impractical for class members to pursue individual litigation against the Defendant to vindicate 

their rights. Certification of this case as a class action will enable the issues to be adjudicated for 

all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.

51. During relevant times, due to the elimination of the previous companionship 

services exemption on January 1, 2015, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not exempt from 

the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act as described above.

52. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members 

worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of 

at least one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 

40 because of Defendant’s policies or practices.

53. Plaintiff and those similarly situated have suffered damages and continue to suffer 

damages as a result of Defendant’s acts or omissions as described herein.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

54. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.

55. This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf 

of herself and the §216(b) Class.

56. During the relevant time period, up to January 1, 2015, preceding this Complaint, 

Defendant employed the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 117
Page 11 of 17

57. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis when 

working in non-exempt positions.

58. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a 

workweek.

59. The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked 

in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).

60. The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of 

their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207(a)(1).

61. “Regular rate” of pay shall be deemed to include all remuneration for employment 

paid to, or on behalf of, the employee, including non-discretionary bonuses like the type of Named 

Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.208 

(“Among these excludable payments are discretionary bonuses, gifts, and payments in the nature 

of gifts on special occasions, contributions by the employer to certain welfare plans and payments 

made by the employer pursuant to certain profit-sharing, thrift and savings plans...bonuses which 

do not qualify for exclusion from the regular rate as one of these types must be totaled in with 

other earnings to determine the regular earnings of the employee.”) (emphasis added.)

62. Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because, 

inter alia, she was not “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employees, as those terms 

are defined under the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.

63. Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because, 

inter alia, she was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term is defined under the FLSA. 

See 29 CFR § 541.301.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 118
Page 12 of 17

64. Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class Members routinely worked in excess of 

forty hours per week since January 1, 2015.

65. Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class Members should have been paid the correct

overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek since January 1, 

2015.

66. Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class 

by, inter alia, failing to fully compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay

for each hour worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.

67. Defendant knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of 

the FLSA. Defendant was doubtlessly aware of the January 1, 2015 exemption elimination for 

third party employers, yet Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime 

compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Collective Members are entitled.

68. The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that 

Defendant has failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members is unknown at this 

time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession of 

Defendant or were not kept by Defendant.

69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, the Named Plaintiff and 

the 216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named Plaintiff 

seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, 

and all other remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the 216(b) Class Members.

COUNT II

(UNPAID OVERTIME PURSUANT TO THE OHIO WAGE LAW)

70. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.

71. This claim is brought under Ohio Law. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 119
Page 13 of 17

72. Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than 

one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty 

(40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of 

section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.” See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see 

also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

73. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked in excess of the 

maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not correctly paid one and 

one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

74. Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act with respect to Named Plaintiff and Ohio 

Rule 23 Class Members by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their 

regular rates of pay for each hour worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek for the reasons set 

forth above.

75. Defendant’s company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly paying 

their hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime premium for each hour worked over 

forty (40) hours in a workweek resulted in unpaid overtime wages.

76. Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were not exempt from the wage 

protections of Ohio Law.

77. Defendant’s repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such, 

Defendant acted willfully. 

78. For Defendant’s violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiff and the 

Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages; the Named Plaintiff 

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 120
Page 14 of 17

and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated 

damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available. 

COUNT III

(VIOLATION OF OHIO'S PROMPT PAY ACT)

79. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.

80. During relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and the 

Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant within 

the meaning of the OPPA.

81. The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class 

Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages 

earned by him during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day 

thereof, and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by her during the last 

half of the preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).

82. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were

not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate within 

thirty (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).

83. The Named Plaintiff’s and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain 

unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.

84. Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and 

continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.

85. In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis and 

with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 121
Page 15 of 17

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as to Count I, Named Plaintiff and other members of the § 216(b) Class 

pray for an Order as follows:

A. Certifying the proposed FLSA collective action;

B. Directing prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to the 216(b) 

Class apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them to timely assert their 

rights under the FLSA and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

C. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s payroll policy or practice of not including 

a non-discretionary “performance bonus” into the regular rate of pay for Named Plaintiff and the 

§ 216(b) Class as described herein violates the FLSA;

D. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s recordkeeping policies and practices 

alleged herein violate the federal recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2, et 

seq., and that Class Plaintiffs, the 216(b) Class Members are entitled to prove their hours worked 

with reasonable estimates;

E. Judgment against Defendant for damages for all unpaid overtime compensation 

owed to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class during the applicable statutory period under the 

FLSA 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 516 et seq.;

F. Judgment against Defendant for liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 516 et seq., in an amount equal to 

all unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly 

situated employees during the applicable statutory period;

G. Directing Defendant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs connected with 

this action;

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 122
Page 16 of 17

H. Leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or 

any other method approved by the Court;

I. Judgment for any and all civil penalties to which Plaintiff and all other similarly 

situated employees may be entitled; and

J. Such other and further relief as to this Court may deem necessary, just or proper.

WHEREFORE, as to Counts II and III, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class 

Members request judgment against Defendant for violations of the Ohio Wage Law and the OPPA 

for an Order:

K. Awarding to the Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members unpaid 

compensation, including overtime wages as to be determined at trial together with any liquidated 

damages allowed by Ohio Law;

L. Awarding Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members costs and 

disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees of counsel and experts, and reimbursement of 

expenses;

M. Awarding judgment against Defendant for liquidated damages pursuant to the 

OPPA in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of all unpaid overtime compensation owed to the 

Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members during the applicable statutory period;

N. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in present, ongoing and 

future violations of the Ohio Acts; and

O. Awarding Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members such other and 

further relief as the Court deems necessary, just or proper.

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 123
Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman_______

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586) 

Coffman Legal, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Telephone: (614) 949-1181

Facsimile: (614) 386-9964

Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

/s/ Daniel I. Bryant___________

Daniel I. Bryant (0090859)

BRYANT LEGAL, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Telephone: (614) 704-0546

Facsimile: (614) 573-9826

Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

Attorneys for Named Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial of eight (8) persons to hear all issues so triable.

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

Case: 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 124