IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Temeca Richardson

3123 Wakefern Place 

Columbus, Ohio 43224

-andStacey Sutherland 

2121 Mans-Lucas Road

Mansfield, Ohio 44903

-andStephanie Ayers 

6294 Brauning Drive

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

-andAngela Camara

4917 Majestic Drive North 

Columbus, Ohio 43232

-andLois Johnson

2311 Woodland Ave. 

Columbus, Ohio 43211

Individually and on behalf of 

other members of the general 

public similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Vizion One Inc 

4889 Sinclair Road 

Columbus, Ohio 43229

-and-

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Judge:

Magistrate Judge:

PLAINTIFFS’ COLLECTIVE AND 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 1
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 2 of 26

Vizion One Inc. 

4889 Sinclair Road 

Columbus, Ohio 43229

-andAddallah Kitwara

4889 Sinclair Road 

Columbus, Ohio 43229

-andVenesia Kitwara

4889 Sinclair Road 

Columbus, Ohio 43229

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

PLAINTIFFS’ COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Now come Plaintiffs Temeca Richardson, Stacey Sutherland, Stephanie Ayers, Angela 

Camara, Lois Johnson and Javani Smith (collectively “Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) through 

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

situated, for their Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendants Vizion One Inc

("Defendant Vizion One - Ohio"), Vizion One Inc. ("Defendant Vizion One – D.C."), Addallah 

Kitwara (“Defendant AK”), and Venesia Kitwara (“Defendant VK”) (collectively, “Defendants”), 

for their 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 (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to 

collectively as “the Ohio Acts”). The claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective action 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and the claims pursuant to O.R.C. 4111.03, 4111.08, and the OPPA 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 2 of 26 PAGEID #: 2
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 3 of 26

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

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

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

state as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

employed Named Plaintiffs 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 Defendants have done substantial business in the Southern District of Ohio.

II. THE PARTIES

4. Named Plaintiff Temeca Richardson (“Named Plaintiff Richardson” or “Plaintiff 

Richardson”), is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in 

the Southern District of Ohio.

5. Named Plaintiff Richardson was employed as an office clerk from approximately 

May 2016 until approximately July 2017.

6. Named Plaintiff Richardson 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 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 3 of 26 PAGEID #: 3
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 4 of 26

overtime and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA. Named Plaintiff Richardson’s consent 

is being filed along with the Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). (Consent to be Party 

Plaintiff, attached hereto as composite Exhibit A). 

7. Named Plaintiff Stacey Sutherland (“Named Plaintiff Sutherland” or “Plaintiff 

Sutherland”), is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in 

the Northern District of Ohio.

8. Named Plaintiff Sutherland was employed as a home health aide from 

approximately August 2016 until approximately August 2017.

9. Named Plaintiff Sutherland 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 Sutherland’s consent 

is being filed along with the Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). (Consent to be Party 

Plaintiff, attached hereto as composite Exhibit A). 

10. Named Plaintiff Stephanie Ayers (“Named Plaintiff Ayers” or “Plaintiff Ayers”), 

is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in the Southern 

District of Ohio.

11. Named Plaintiff Ayers has been employed as a home health aide from 

approximately March 2017 and is still presently employed as of the date of this filing.

12. Named Plaintiff Ayers 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 Ayers’ consent is being filed 

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

hereto as composite Exhibit A). 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 4 of 26 PAGEID #: 4
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 5 of 26

13. Named Plaintiff Angela Camara (“Named Plaintiff Camara” or “Plaintiff 

Camara”), is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in the 

Southern District of Ohio.

14. Named Plaintiff Camara has been employed as a home health aide from 

approximately December 2016 and is still presently employed as of the date of this filing. 

15. Named Plaintiff Camara 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 Camara’s consent is 

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

attached hereto as composite Exhibit A). 

16. Named Plaintiff Lois Johnson (“Named Plaintiff Johnson” or “Plaintiff Johnson”), 

is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in the Southern 

District of Ohio.

17. Named Plaintiff Johnson has been employed as a human resources clerk and home 

health aide from approximately February 2017 until approximately September 2017. 

18. Named Plaintiff Johnson 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 Johnson’s consent is

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

attached hereto as composite Exhibit A). 

19. Defendant Vizion One Inc (“Defendant Vizion One – Ohio”) is an Ohio for profit 

corporation with its principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio. Defendant Vizion 

One - Ohio is a home care staffing agency of direct care workers for the disabled, the elderly, and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 5 of 26 PAGEID #: 5
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 6 of 26

any other individual in need of assistance. According to Defendant Vizion One – Ohio’s website,1

it provides services in the following areas: home health aide services, skill nursing services, social 

services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, case management services, 

behavioral health management and medical transportation. 

20. Defendant Vizion One - Ohio has maintained multiple locations in Ohio, including 

offices in Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati and Mansfield.2

21. Defendant Vizion One - Ohio may be served at its above-listed business address or 

through its Registered Agent Venesia Kitwara, 2170 North Gettysburg Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45406. 

22. Defendant Vizion One Inc. (“Defendant Vizion One – D.C.”) is a foreign for-profit 

corporation with its principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio and is registered 

to conduct business in the State of Ohio. Defendant Vizion One – D.C. is a home care staffing 

agency of direct care workers for the disabled, the elderly, and any other individual in need of 

assistance. According to Defendant Vizion One – D.C.’s website,3it provides services in the 

following areas: home health aide services, skill nursing services, social services, physical therapy, 

occupational therapy, speech therapy, case management services, behavioral health management 

and medical transportation. 

23. Defendant Vizion One – D.C. has maintained multiple locations in Ohio, including 

offices in Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati and Mansfield.4

 

1 See http://viziononeinc.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-84

2 Upon information and belief, the Mansfield office is no longer open.

3 See Footnote 1. 

4 See Footnote 2.

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 6 of 26 PAGEID #: 6
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 7 of 26

24. Defendant Vizion One – D.C. may be served at its above-listed business address or 

through its Registered Agent Ibrahim Bundu, 3256 Manchester Way Drive, Westerville, Ohio 

43081. 

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Addallah Kitwara (“Defendant AK”) is an 

individual, a United States Citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio. 

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant Venesia Kitwara (“Defendant VK”) is an 

individual, a United States Citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio. 

27. Upon information and belief, Defendants AK and VK are believed to be the owners

of Defendant Vizion One – Ohio and Defendant Vizion One – D.C. Defendant VK is believed to 

be the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Defendant Vizion One – Ohio and Defendant Vizion 

One – D.C. 

28. Defendant VK is also the statutory agent of Defendant Vizion One – Ohio as 

provided above. 

29. Defendants are and have been, jointly and individually, “employers” as that term is 

defined by the FLSA, the OMFWSA, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

30. During relevant times, Defendants AK and VK as founders and owners and 

Defendant VK as CEO, have had operational control over significant aspects of the day-to-day 

functions of Defendant Vizion One – Ohio and Defendant Vizion One – D.C., including the dayto-day functions of Named Plaintiffs. 

31. During relevant times, Defendants AK and VK have had the authority to hire, fire 

and discipline employees, including Named Plaintiffs. 

32. During relevant times, Defendants AK and VK have had the authority to set rates 

and methods of compensation of Named Plaintiffs.

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 7 of 26 PAGEID #: 7
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 8 of 26

33. During relevant times, Defendants AK and VK have had the authority to control 

the work schedule and employment conditions of Named Plaintiffs.

34. During relevant times, Defendants AK and VK have had ultimate authority and 

control of employment records.

35. During relevant times, Defendants have mutually benefitted from the work 

performed by Named Plaintiffs. 

36. During relevant times, Defendants have not acted entirely independently of each 

other and have not been completely disassociated with respect to Named Plaintiffs. 

37. During relevant times, Defendants shared the services of Named Plaintiffs. 

38. During relevant times, Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interest of each 

other in relation to Named Plaintiffs. 

39. Defendants are actively doing business in this judicial district and are jointly an 

“employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

40. During relevant times, Defendants maintained control, oversight, and direction over 

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

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

41. During relevant times, Defendants benefitted from the work performed by Named 

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.

42. Upon information and belief, Defendants operate and control an enterprise and 

employ employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or have had 

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

or produced for commerce by any person; and Defendants have had an annual gross volume of 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 8 of 26 PAGEID #: 8
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 9 of 26

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

retail level).

43. During relevant times, Defendants have been involved in the employment decisions 

of Named Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, decisions about Defendants’ wage and hour 

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

III. FACTS

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

45. During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Richardson worked as 

an office clerk filing documentation, answering phone calls, billing and performing related tasks 

from May 2016 until approximately July 2017. Named Plaintiff Richardson regularly worked more 

than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” 

or “overtime”) for hours she worked over 40 in any workweek.

46. During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Sutherland worked as a 

home health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other inhome services from approximately August 2016 until approximately August 2017. Named 

Plaintiff Sutherland regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and onehalf her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for hours she worked over 40 in any 

workweek.

47. During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Ayers worked as a home 

health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home 

services from approximately March 2017 and is still presently employed as of the date of this 

filing. Named Plaintiff Ayers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 9 of 26 PAGEID #: 9
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 10 of 26

and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for hours she worked over 40 

in any workweek.

48. During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Camara worked as a 

home health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other inhome services beginning approximately in December 2016 and is still presently employed as of 

the date of this filing. Named Plaintiff Camara regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but 

was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for hours she 

worked over 40 in any workweek.

49. During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Johnson worked as a 

human resources clerk providing office related tasks such as filing, answering phone calls, billing 

and related office tasks from approximately February 2017 until approximately July 2017. Named 

Plaintiff Johnson additionally worked as a home health aide providing companionship services, 

domestic services, home care, and other in-home services from approximately February 2017 until 

approximately September 2017. Named Plaintiff Johnson regularly worked more than 40 hours 

per week, but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) 

for hours she worked over 40 in any workweek.

50. At all times relevant herein, the Named Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants as 

defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.

51. Subject to the elimination of a previous exemption, all Named Plaintiffs were

hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.

52. Defendants are and have been an “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA 

and the Ohio Wage Act.

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 10 of 26 PAGEID #: 10
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 11 of 26

53. During relevant times, Defendants suffered and permitted Named Plaintiffs 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

regular rates of pay.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, were fully 

aware of the fact that they were 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. 

55. During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully in regards 

to their conduct described herein.

56. Defendants are in possession and control of necessary documents and information 

from which Named Plaintiffs would be able to precisely calculate damages.

IV. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

57. The Named Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of themselves and all other Similarly Situated Persons 

(“SSPs”) of the opt-in class, consisting of the following subclasses:

(1) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt home health 

employees of Defendants, including home health aides, 

providing companionship services, domestic services, home 

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

any workweek but were not properly paid time and a half for the 

hours they worked over 40, from January 1, 2015 through the 

date of final disposition of this case (the “216(b) Home Health 

Subclass”).

(2) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of 

Defendants that did not provide companionship services, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 11 of 26 PAGEID #: 11
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 12 of 26

domestic services, home care, and other in-home services who 

worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not properly 

paid time and a half for the hours they worked over 40 for the 

three years preceding the filing of this case through its date of 

final disposition (the “216(b) Hourly Employee Subclass”).

Members of the “216(b) Home Health Subclass” and the “216(b) Hourly Employee Subclass” will 

be referred to as either the “216(b) Class” or “216(b) Class Members.”

58. 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, human 

resources clerks, administrative staff, office staff, and other employees who provided 

companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services for Defendants.

59. Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class are in positions 

in the following departments of Defendants: home health aide services, skill nurse services, social 

work, rehabilitation services and human resources/administration. 

60. Those 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Home Health Subclass who provided 

companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or other in-home services 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).

61. Other 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Hourly Employee Subclass such as 

human resources clerks and similar hourly employees were never subject to an exemption under 

the FLSA. 

62. 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 Plaintiffs, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 12 of 26 PAGEID #: 12
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 13 of 26

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

Defendants’ company-wide payroll policies and practices. The Named Plaintiffs are representative 

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

their own in bringing this action.

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

are readily identifiable through Defendants’ 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. 

64. The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully 

failed to pay overtime wages to save payroll costs. Thus, Defendants enjoyed substantial ill-gained 

profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiffs and §216(b) Class Members.

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

65. The Named Plaintiffs bring their Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as 

a class action on behalf of themselves and all other members of the following class, 

consisting of the following subclasses:

(1) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt home health 

employees of Defendants, including home health aides, 

providing companionship services, domestic services, home 

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

any workweek but were not properly paid time and a half for the 

hours they worked over 40, from January 1, 2015 through the 

date of final disposition of this case (the “Rule 23 Home Health 

Subclass”).

(2) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of 

Defendants that did not provide companionship services, 

domestic services, home care, and other in-home services who 

worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not properly 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 13 of 26 PAGEID #: 13
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 14 of 26

paid time and a half for the hours they worked over 40 for the 

three years preceding the filing of this case through its date of 

final disposition (the “Rule 23 Hourly Employee Subclass”).

Members of the “Rule 23 Home Health Subclass” and the “Rule 23 Hourly Employee Subclass” 

will be referred to as either the “Ohio Rule 23 Class” or the “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members.”

66. 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, 

human resources clerks, administrative staff, office staff, and other employees who provided 

companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services for Defendants.

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

members is impracticable.

68. The Named Plaintiffs are members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and their claims for 

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

69. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class 

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

70. The Named Plaintiffs do not have an interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict 

with those interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent. 

71. The Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel 

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

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

73. 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 Defendants with respect to their non-exempt employees.

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 14 of 26 PAGEID #: 14
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 15 of 26

74. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendants acted 

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

declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a whole.

75. 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. 

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

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

Rule 23 Class for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week; (b) whether Defendants kept 

accurate records of the amount of time the Ohio Rule 23 Class was working each day; (c) whether 

Defendants calculated the Ohio Rule 23 Class’ overtime rate of pay as required by the statute; (d) 

whether Defendants’ violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; (e) what amount 

of unpaid and/or withheld compensation, including overtime compensation, is due to the Named 

Plaintiffs and other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on account of Defendants’ violations of 

the Ohio Wage Act; and (f) 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. 

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

of Named Plaintiffs’ claims and will prevent undue financial, administrative and procedural 

burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiffs 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 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 15 of 26 PAGEID #: 15
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 16 of 26

to pursue individual litigation against the Defendants 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. 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

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

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

of themselves and the 216(b) Class. 

80. The FLSA requires that employees receive overtime compensation for hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

81. During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants employed 

the Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members.

82. The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis

when working in non-exempt positions.

83. The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members regularly worked in excess of 

40 hours in a workweek.

84. Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) 

Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates for 

any hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.

85. The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members were not exempt from 

receiving FLSA overtime benefits.

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 16 of 26 PAGEID #: 16
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 17 of 26

86. Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of 

the FLSA. Defendants were doubtlessly aware of the January 1, 2015 exemption elimination for 

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

compensation to which those Named Plaintiffs and 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Home 

Health Subclass who provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or other 

in-home services are entitled.

87. In addition, Defendants willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime 

compensation to which those Named Plaintiffs and 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Hourly 

Employee Subclass.

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

Defendants have failed to pay the Named Plaintiffs 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 Defendants or were not kept by Defendants.

89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, the Named Plaintiffs and 

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

seek 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

(O.R.C. § 4111.03 — OHIO RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

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

91. This claim is brought under Ohio Law. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 17 of 26 PAGEID #: 17
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 18 of 26

92. The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed 

by Defendants, and Defendants are an employer covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio 

Law.

93. 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).

94. While employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class 

Members in the Rule 23 Home Health Subclass worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours 

permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not paid overtime wages for this time spent working

since January 1, 2015.

95. While employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class

Members in the Rule 23 Hourly Employee Subclass worked in excess of the maximum weekly 

hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not paid overtime wages for this time spent 

working during the past three years.

96. Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy of not paying time and a half for the 

hours that the Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked over 40 each week 

resulted in unpaid overtime.

97. Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage 

protections of Ohio Law.

98. Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named 

Plaintiffs were violations of O.R.C. §4111.03, and as such, Defendant willfully withheld and failed 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 18 of 26 PAGEID #: 18
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 19 of 26

to pay the overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members

are entitled. 

99. For Defendants’ violations of O.R.C. § 4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiffs and 

the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named 

Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and 

attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the Ohio Rule 23 

Class Members.

COUNT III

(O.R.C. § 4113.15 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION)

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

101. The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed 

by Defendants.

102. During relevant times, Defendants were an entity covered by the OPPA and the 

Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendants within 

the meaning of the OPPA.

103. The OPPA requires that the Defendants pay Named Plaintiffs 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 them 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 them during 

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

104. During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs 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).

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 19 of 26 PAGEID #: 19
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 20 of 26

105. The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain 

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

106. In violating the OPPA, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basis and 

with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

COUNT IV

RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT

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

108. The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or 

other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total 

hours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.

109. During all times material to this complaint, Defendants were covered employers, 

and required to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.

110. Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees

entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.

111. During times material to this complaint, Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act 

with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members by failing to properly 

maintain accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members

worked each workday and within each workweek.

112. In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants acted willfully and with reckless 

disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.

COUNT V

(FLSA RETALIATION – NAMED PLAINTIFF AYERS ONLY)

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

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 20 of 26 PAGEID #: 20
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 21 of 26

114. Shortly after Named Plaintiff Ayers began working for Defendants, she discovered 

she had not been compensated by Defendants for all hours worked over forty (40) per workweek 

at a rate of at least one and one-half times her regular rate of pay. 

115. Named Plaintiff Ayers then asked Defendants and their office administrator, Abdul 

Sesay (“Mr. Sesay”), about payment of overtime wages and inquired as to why she had not been 

paid overtime wages for her hours worked over forty (40) per workweek. 

116. Mr. Sesay told Name Plaintiff Ayers that Defendants have a company-wide policy 

of not paying their hourly non-exempt employees, including home health employees such as 

Named Plaintiff Ayers, overtime compensation of at least one and one-half times their regular rates 

of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. 

117. Named Plaintiff Ayers then contacted the United States Department of Labor, 

Wage and Hour Division (“Wage and Hour Division”) to ask about overtime pay laws and her 

entitlement to payment of overtime wages as a home health aide. The Wage and Hour Division

advised Named Plaintiff Ayers that due to the removal of a previous exemption and new overtime 

pay requirements affecting in-home care companies such as Defendants, Named Plaintiff Ayers 

was entitled to be paid overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 per week as a home health 

aide for Defendants. 

118. The Wage and Hour Division asked Named Plaintiff Ayers whether she wanted to 

file a formal claim against Defendants for their failure to comply with the overtime laws. She 

declined to file a formal claim at that time and stated she would instead discuss the matter again 

with Defendants in an effort to resolve the matter without filing a formal complaint. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 21 of 26 PAGEID #: 21
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 22 of 26

119. In or around May of 2017, Named Plaintiff Ayers met with Mr. Sesay to again 

discuss her entitlement to overtime wages and her recent discussions with Wage and Hour Division

during which she was advised of the prior exemption’s removal for home health aides. 

120. Defendants had prepared a form for all their home health aides that stated they were 

not entitled to overtime wages, and/or they agreed to “waive” their entitlement to overtime wages,

for all hours worked over 40 per workweek and required all home health aides to sign the same. 

121. Named Plaintiff Ayers refused to sign the form Defendants prepared that 

incorrectly stated she and Defendants’ other home health aides were not entitled to payment of 

overtime wages and/or that they agreed to “waive” their right to overtime wages. 

122. Shortly after these discussions and after Defendants learned Named Plaintiff Ayers 

contacted the Wage and Hour Division about her entitlement to overtime wages, Defendants 

reduced Named Plaintiff Ayers’ work hours. 

123. Thereafter, Defendants stopped scheduling Named Plaintiff Ayers and/or refused 

to provide her with patients despite needing additional home health aides for a period of time in 

retaliation for opposing Defendants’ improper pay practices and making complaints regarding the 

same. 

124. When Named Plaintiff Ayers lodged the above-described complaints to Defendants 

and to the Wage and Hour Division, she was engaged in protected activity as defined by 29 U.S.C. 

§ 215(a)(3).

125. Defendants knew of Named Plaintiff Ayers’ complaints and discussions with the 

Wage and Hour Division about her entitlement to overtime wages, and Defendants then took 

numerous actions against her that were retaliatory in nature and a direct consequence of said 

complaints. Such retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to (i) reducing her work hours, (ii) 

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 22 of 26 PAGEID #: 22
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 23 of 26

preparing a form for Named Plaintiff Ayers to sign stating she was not entitled to overtime wages 

and/or she agreed to “waive” such wages; (iii) failing to assign her to patients despite needing 

additional home health aides for a period of time; (iv) assigning other home health aides to care 

for patients who had not opposed Defendants’ improper pay practices or contacted Wage and 

Hour Division instead of Named Plaintiff Ayers; and (v) assigning other home health aides who 

had signed the above-referenced form to care for patients instead of Named Plaintiff Ayers because 

she refused to sign the form.

126. It is a violation of the FLSA for an employer to “discharge or in any other manner 

discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or 

caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about 

to testify in any such proceeding.”

127. Named Plaintiff Ayers has been damaged by Defendants’ willful violation of the 

Fair Labor Standards act such that she is entitled to compensation therefore, including liquidated 

damages and attorney’s fees.

COUNT VI

(RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF OHIO MINIMUM FAIR WAGE 

STANDARDS ACT - NAMED PLAINTIFF AYERS ONLY)

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

129. It is also a violation of the OMFWSA for an employer to “discharge or in any 

manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified 

or is about to testify in any such proceeding.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 23 of 26 PAGEID #: 23
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 24 of 26

130. When Named Plaintiff Ayers was retaliated against as provided in the foregoing 

paragraphs, Defendants engaged in “prohibited acts” as that term is defined by Ohio Revised Code 

§ 4111.13.

131. Named Plaintiff Ayers has been damaged by Defendants’ violations of the 

OMFWSA such that she is entitled to compensation therefore.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants and for an Order:

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. Certifying the proposed Rule 23 Class under Ohio Law;

D. Directing Defendants, at their own expense, to investigate and account for the number of 

hours actually worked by Named Plaintiffs and the putative class and collective members 

per week, and because Defendants have failed to keep accurate records in accordance with

Ohio Law, Named Plaintiffs, the 216(b) Class Members and the Rule 23 Class Members 

are entitled to prove their hours worked with reasonable estimates;

E. Awarding to the Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members unpaid compensation, 

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

allowed by the FLSA;

F. Awarding to the Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members unpaid compensation, 

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

allowed by Ohio Law;

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 24 of 26 PAGEID #: 24
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 25 of 26

G. Awarding Named Plaintiffs, the 216(b) Class Members and the Rule 23 Class Members 

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

reimbursement of expenses;

H. Awarding Named Plaintiffs, the 216(b) Class Members and the Rule 23 Class Members 

such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper;

I. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in present, ongoing and future 

violations of the FLSA and Ohio Law;

J. Granting Named Plaintiff Ayers all damages resulting from Defendants’ willful violations

of the FLSA and Ohio Law by taking retaliatory actions against her, including liquidated 

damages and attorney’s fees, and any other relief or recovery to which she is entitled due 

to such actions; 

K. Granting Named Plaintiffs leave to amend to file additional claims for relief or different 

causes of action should information become available through investigation and discovery; 

and

L. Rendering a judgment against Defendants for all damage, relief, or any other recovery 

whatsoever.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

Coffman Legal, LLC

1457 S. High St. 

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Phone: 614-949-1181

Fax: 614-386-9964

Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

Peter Contreras (0087530)

CONTRERAS LAW, LLC

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 25 of 26 PAGEID #: 25
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Richardson, et al. v. Vizion One Inc, et al.

Case No. 2:17-cv-838

Page 26 of 26

PO Box 215

Amlin, Ohio 43002

Phone: 614-787-4878

Fax: 614-923-7369

Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs

JURY DEMAND

Class Plaintiffs request a trial by a jury of eight (8) persons.

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

Case: 2:17-cv-00838-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 26 of 26 PAGEID #: 26