UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TAMIKA DURR

178 Penick Ave.

Delaware, Ohio 43015

On behalf of herself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LADY JANE’S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN 

HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

Doing business as

Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men

1130 Henderson Road

Columbus, OH, 43220

LADY JANE’S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN 

HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

c/o its Statutory Agent

Chad Johnson

5236 Monroe St.

Toledo, OH 43623

—and—

CHAD JOHNSON

c/o Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men 

Holding Company, LLC

c/o its Statutory Agent

Chad Johnson

5236 Monroe St.

Toledo, OH 43623

—and—

JOHN DOE I

(correct name unknown)

c/o Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.

JUDGE

Magistrate Judge

PLAINTIFF’S CLASS AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE FAIR

LABOR STANDARD ACT AND 

STATE LAW

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 1
2

Holding Company, LLC

c/o its Statutory Agent

Chad Johnson

5236 Monroe St.

Toledo, OH 43623

—and—

JOHN DOE II

(correct name unknown)

c/o Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men 

Holding Company, LLC

c/o its Statutory Agent

Chad Johnson

5236 Monroe St.

Toledo, OH 43623

—and—

JOHN DOE III

(correct name unknown)

c/o Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men 

Holding Company, LLC

c/o its Statutory Agent

Chad Johnson

5236 Monroe St.

Toledo, OH 43623

Defendants.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

Plaintiff Tamika Durr, through counsel, respectfully files this Class and 

Collective Action Complaint against Defendant Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men Holding 

Company, LLC, doing business as Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men Holding Company, 

LLC; Defendant Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC; Defendant 

Chad Johnson, Defendant John Doe I, Defendant John Doe II, and Defendant John Doe 

III (sometimes collectively “Defendants”).

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 2
3

INTRODUCTION

1. This case challenges practices of Defendants by which they willfully 

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as well Ohio 

Constitution art. II, § 34a, and the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code 

Ann. § 4111.03.

2. Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability“ prescribed by 

the FLSA “may be maintained against any employer ... by any one or more employees 

for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.“ 

Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of herself and other “similarly-situated” persons who 

may join the case pursuant to § 216(b) (“Potential Opt-Ins”).

3. Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 

on behalf of herself and other members of a class of persons, defined herein, who assert 

factually-related claims under the OMFWA and the Ohio overtime compensation 

statute (the “Ohio Class”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims 

because those claims are so related to the FLSA claims as to form part of the same case 

or controversy.

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 3
4

6. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b) because one or more Defendants reside in this district and division and a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here.

PARTIES

7. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Tamika Durr was a citizen of the United 

States and a resident of Delaware, Ohio, residing at 178 Penick Ave., Delaware, Ohio 

43015.

8. Defendant Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC (“Lady 

Jane’s”) is a Michigan corporation doing business as “Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men” 

throughout the United States and its territories. Lady Jane’s does business at multiple 

location in Columbus, Ohio and throughout the state, including at 1130 Henderson 

Road, Columbus, OH, 43220. According to records maintained by the Ohio Secretary of 

State, its statutory agent for service of process is Chad Johnson, 5236 Monroe St., 

Toledo, OH 43623.

9. At all times relevant, Defendant Chad Johnson was the owner, operator, 

and principal manager of Lady Jane’s.

10. Defendants John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe II, whose correct names 

are currently unknown, are other persons or entities who were employers of Plaintiff 

within the meaning of the FLSA and state law.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendants’ Business

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 4
5

11. Defendant Lady Jane’s owns and operates retail shops throughout the 

United States and its territories that sell haircuts and grooming products for men.

12. Lady Jane’s utilizes employees, whom it calls “stylists,” to give the 

haircuts and sell the grooming products at the shops. Lady Jane’s supplies all products 

sold in the shops, through vendors with which it has contractual relationships.

13. Lady Jane’s manages the shops through district and in-store managers 

who supervise the stylists and the sales.

Lady Jane’s’ Employment of Plaintiff and Other Stylists

14. Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b), and all members of the Ohio Class were unlawfully classified by 

Defendants as “independent contractors,” but were in fact non-exempt employees of

Lady Jane’s.

15. Plaintiff Tamika Durr worked as a stylist at the Lady Jane’s shop on 

Henderson Road in Columbus from June to December 2016 and again from June 2017 to 

the present. 

16. Lady Jane’s was an “employer” of Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the 

Ohio Class Members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

17. Defendant Chad Johnson was an “employer” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d) in that he was a “person [who] act[ed] directly or indirectly in the interest of an 

employer,” Defendant Lady Jane’s, “in relation to employees,” including Plaintiff, the 

Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class Members. As the owner, operator, and principal 

manager of Lady Jane’s, Defendant Johnson had operational control over significant 

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 5
6

aspects of the company’s operations and day-to-day functions, including compensation 

of employees. Defendant Johnson instituted or knowingly ratified the company’s 

unlawful practice of treating employee-stylists as “independent contractors” in an 

attempt to avoid paying them as prescribed by the FLSA and state law.

18. At all times relevant, Lady Jane’s was an enterprise within the meaning of 

29 U.S.C. § 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods 

for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

Defendants’ Misclassification of Employees

19. Defendant Lady Jane’s, in violation of law, misclassified its “stylists” as 

so-called “independent contractors.”

20. In fact, Lady Jane’s’ stylists were employees of Lady Jane’s according to 

the standards applicable under the FLSA and Ohio law.

21. Lady Jane’s trains its stylists. Lady Jane’s required Plaintiff to complete a 

training period of approximately three weeks at a Lady Jane’s shop, during with she 

received little or no pay.

22. Lady’s Jane’s controlled the stylists’ days and hours and required them to 

be in the shops during their scheduled periods. Lady Jane’s required Plaintiff and other 

stylists to work at the shops from 8:45AM to 8PM on Fridays and from 9:45AM to 8PM

on other days. Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek, and worked 50 

hours or more on some workweeks.

23. Lady Jane’s directs and controls the stylists’ work through instructions 

given to them by email and through district and in-store managers, as well as through 

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 6
7

posted manual-labor assignments. The stylists are required to answer phones and 

perform daily cleaning work assigned them by Lady Jane’s. Stylists are assigned 

“laundry” work which they must complete before they are permitted to service 

customers. In addition, Lady Jane’s assigns weekly “deep-cleaning” work to the 

stylists, which includes mopping of floors and washing of walls and baseboard.

24. Lady Jane’s controls the services stylist may provide to customers and the 

prices charged for such services. Lady Jane’s posts lists of services and prices on the 

shops’ walls, and the stylists are required to adhere to the posted lists.

25. Lady Jane’s controls the products stylists sell and the prices at which they 

must sell them. Lady Jane’s supplies all products sold in the shops, through vendors 

with which it has contractual relationships. Stylists are required to sell those products 

exclusively, at prices determined by Lady Jane’s.

26. Through its district and in-store managers and by other means, Lady

Jane’s controls the nature and frequency of the services stylists perform and the sales 

they make. Lady Jane’s establishes and disseminates standards, averages, and quotas 

that stylists must meet on a daily and weekly basis. Managers observe and correct the 

stylists in the course of their work, monitor their compliance with the established 

standards, averages, and quotas, and admonish and discipline them for noncompliance.

27. Lady Jane’s controlled the compensation stylists earned for the work. 

Lady Janes dictated the services stylists could provide to customers and the 

compensation it paid to the stylists for such services.

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 7
8

28. As a matter of economic reality, the stylists were economically dependent 

on Lady Jane’s.

29. The stylists performed work that was integral to Lady Jane’s’ primary 

business. 

30. Lady Jane’s controlled the work its stylists performed and the manner in 

which they performed it.

31. The stylists worked for Lady Jane’s in comparatively low-paying jobs, and 

typically held their positions with Lady Jane’s for long periods of time.

32. Lady Jane’s’ investments and expenditures substantially outweighed any 

expenditures required on the part of the stylists.

33. Any opportunities the stylists had to earn remuneration were unilaterally 

determined and controlled by Lady Jane’s. 

34. Lady Jane’s determined the work its stylists performed and the hours 

during which they performed that work. 

35. The stylists were under the direct supervision and control of Lady Jane’s’

managers and supervisors.

36. Lady Jane’s unilaterally determined the amounts its stylists were paid.

37. The stylists’ work for Lady Jane’s regularly consumed the normal 

workweek of full-time employees.

Lady Jane’s’ Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

and Overtime Compensation

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 8
9

38. Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class Members frequently 

worked more than forty hours in a single workweek.

39. The FLSA required Lady Jane’s to pay the stylists at least the minimum 

wage, and to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their “regular 

rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206,

207(e)(3); 29 C.F.R. 778.117.

40. However, Lady Jane’s, having unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff, the 

Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class Members as “independent contractors,” failed to 

pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation. 

41. Department of Labor regulations provide that “‘wages’ cannot be 

considered to have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless 

they are paid finally and unconditionally or ‘free and clear.’” 29 C.F.R. § 531.35. The 

FLSA’s minimum wage requirements are not met “where the employee ‘kicks-back’

directly or indirectly” all or part of the employer’s wage payment. Id. An FLSA 

violation occurs “in any workweek when the cost of [tools of the trade] purchased by 

the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid him under 

the Act.” Id. 

42. Defendant Lady Jane’s failed to pay at least the minimum wage to 

Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class Members. Lady Jane’s paid them 

low rates of compensation, and then deducted charges and expenses that Lady Jane’s

required the stylists to incur. In some workweeks, the amounts paid to the stylists

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 9
10

“finally and unconditionally or ‘free and clear’” did not equal or exceed the minimum 

wage. 

43. Lady Jane’s failed to pay overtime compensation at one and one-half times 

the employees’ “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a 

workweek.

44. Lady Jane’s knew that Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class 

were entitled to minimum wages and overtime compensation pay under federal and 

state law, or acted in reckless disregard for whether they were so entitled.

The Willfulness of Defendants’ Violations

45. Lady Jane’s knew that Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class 

were entitled to minimum wages and overtime compensation pay under federal and 

state law, or acted in reckless disregard for whether they were so entitled.

46. Defendants intentionally and willfully circumvented the requirements of 

the FLSA and state law. Defendants designed their “independent contractor” pay 

structure in an attempt to circumvent those requirements.

47. Defendant deliberately concealed their unlawful wage-and-hour practices 

from scrutiny by governmental agencies. In advance of an inspection by the United 

States Department of Labor, Lady Jane’s removed its schedules, price lists, and other 

postings from shop walls and coached employees on how they must respond to 

questions. Defendants did so in a planned effort to mislead DOL investigators and 

avoid liability for unlawful wage-and-hour practices. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 10
11

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein. 

49. Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability“ prescribed by 

the FLSA “may be maintained against any employer ... by any one or more employees 

for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.“

50. The Potential Opt-Ins who are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff with respect 

to Defendant Lady Jane’s’ FLSA violations consist of:

All stylists who worked at Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men as 

“independent contractors” during the period three years preceding 

the commencement of this action to the present.

51. Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Lady Jane’s’ FLSA 

violations in that all were misclassified by Lady Jane’s as so-called “independent 

contractors,” all were subjected to and injured by Lady Jane’s’ unlawful practice of 

failing to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to its stylists, and all have 

the same claims against Lady Jane’s for unpaid minimum wages and overtime 

compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

52. Conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) is proper and necessary so that such persons may be sent a Courtauthorized notice informing them of the pendency of the action and giving them the 

opportunity to “opt in.”

53. Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons 

but avers, upon information and belief, that they consist of several thousand persons. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 11
12

Such persons are readily identifiable through the records Lady Jane’s has maintained, 

and was required to maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 

29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio Const. art. II, § 34a.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein.

55. Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on 

behalf of herself and other members of two classes of persons defined herein.

56. Plaintiff bring this case on behalf of herself and other members of a

proposed Ohio Class, defined as:

All stylists who worked at Lady Jane’s Haircuts for Men as 

“independent contractors” in Ohio during the period two years 

preceding the commencement of this action to the present.

57. The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is 

impracticable. Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of Class Members but avers, 

upon information and belief, that they consist of hundreds of persons. The number of 

Class Members as well as their identities are ascertainable from records Lady Jane’s has

maintained, and was required to maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law. 29 

U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio Const. art. II, § 34a.

58. There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including 

but not limited to:

a) Whether Lady Jane’s misclassified its stylists as 

“independent contractors,” when they in fact were nonexempt employees of Lady Jane’s.

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 12
13

b) Whether Lady Jane’s paid Plaintiff and other Class Members 

at least the minimum wage; 

c) Whether Lady Jane’s paid overtime compensation to 

Plaintiff and other Class Members at one and one-half times 

their “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty 

hours in a workweek.

59. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio 

Class. Plaintiff’ claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Lady Jane’s, 

and are based on the same legal theories, as the claims of other Class Members.

60. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class. 

Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of 

other Class Members. Plaintiff’ counsel have broad experience in handling class action 

litigation, including wage-and-hour litigation, and are fully qualified to prosecute the 

claims of the Ohio Class in this case.

61. The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The primary 

questions that will determine Lady Jane’s’ liability to the class, listed above, are 

common to the class as a whole, and predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual class members.

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

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Requiring class members to pursue their 

claims individually would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication 

of costs, attorneys’ fees, and demands on court resources. Many class members’ claims 

are sufficiently small that they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 13
14

and risk of pursuing their claims individually. Certification of this case as a class action 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be adjudicated for all class 

members with the efficiencies of class litigation.

COUNT ONE

(FLSA Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations)

63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein.

64. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage 

overtime provisions on behalf of herself and the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this 

case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff’s written consent to becoming a party to 

this action pursuant to § 216(b) will be filed with the Court.

65. The FLSA required Lady Jane’s to pay its stylists at least the minimum 

wage, and to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their “regular 

rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206,

207(e)(3); 29 C.F.R. 778.117.

66. Lady Jane’s failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to 

Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins, in violation of the FLSA.

67. As more fully described above, Lady Jane’s, in violation of law, 

misclassified its stylists as so-called “independent contractors,” when in fact they were 

employees of Lady Jane’s according to the standards applicable under the FLSA.

68. By engaging in these practices, Lady Jane’s willfully violated the FLSA 

and regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 14
15

69. As a result of Lady Jane’s’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the 

Potential Opt-Ins were injured in that they did not receive minimum wages and 

overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the FLSA. Section 216(b) of the FLSA 

entitles them to an award of unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, as 

well as “an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” Section 216(b) further 

provides that “[t]he court ... shall ... allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the 

defendant, and costs of the action.”

COUNT TWO

(Ohio Minimum Wage Violations)

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein.

71. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of Ohio Constitution art. II, § 34a, 

on behalf of herself, the Potential Opt-Ins in Ohio, and the Ohio Class Members.

72. Ohio Constitution art. II, § 34a, required Lady Jane’s to pay its stylists at 

least the minimum wage.

73. Lady Jane’s failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff, the Potential OptIns in Ohio, and the Ohio Class Members, in violation of Ohio Constitution art. II, § 34a. 

Ohio Constitution art. II, § 34a entitles them to “equitable and monetary relief” 

including “two times the amount of the back wages.”

COUNT THREE

(Ohio Overtime Violations)

74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 15
16

75. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation 

statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of herself, the Potential Opt-Ins in 

Ohio, and the Ohio Class Members.

76. At all times relevant, Lady Jane’s was an employer covered by the Ohio 

overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.

77. Lady Jane’s violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. 

Code Ann. § 4111.03, by failing to pay overtime compensation to its stylists when due. 

78. Lady Jane’s’ violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff, 

the Potential Opt-Ins in Ohio, and the Ohio Class Members in that they did not receive 

overtime compensation due to them pursuant to that statute.

79. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Lady Jane’s, having 

violated § 4111.03, is “liable to the employee[s] affected for the full amount of the 

overtime wage rate, less any amount actually paid to the employee[s] by the employer, 

and for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.” 

COUNT FOUR

(Ohio Record-Keeping Violations)

80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully 

rewritten herein. 

81. The OMFWA required Lady Jane’s to maintain accurate and complete 

records of employees’ time. Ohio Const. art. II, § 34a.

82. Lady Jane’s violated the OMFWA’s record-keeping requirement by failing 

to maintain accurate and complete records of its stylists’ time.

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 16
17

83. As a result of Lady Jane’s’ record-keeping violations, Plaintiff, the 

potential Opt-Ins in Ohio, and the Ohio Class Members were injured in that Lady Jane’s

does not have accurate and complete records of their working hours. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Conditionally certify this case as an FLSA “collective action” 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and direct that Court-approved 

notice be issued to similarly-situated persons informing them of 

this action and enabling them to opt in; 

B. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on 

behalf of Plaintiff and other members of the Ohio Class; 

C. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff, the 

Opt-Ins who join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the 

Ohio Class;

D. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins who join 

this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the Ohio Class in the 

amount of their unpaid wages and commissions, as well as 

liquidated damages in an equal amount;

E. Award Plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in 

prosecuting this action and such further relief as the Court deems 

equitable and just. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Ryan A. Winters 

Joseph F. Scott (0029780)

Ryan A. Winters (0086917)

Kevin M. McDermott, II (0090455)

Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC

The Caxton Building

812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490

Cleveland, OH 44114

440-498-9100

jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 17
18

rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

s/ Thomas A. Downie

Thomas A. Downie (0033119)

46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104

Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022

440-973-9000

tom@chagrinlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

/s/ Ryan A. Winters 

Ryan A. Winters (0086917)

Case: 2:17-cv-00971-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/03/17 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 18