IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MARY MASON

1134 Sharon Ave

Kettering, OH 45429

and

YAHAIRA DIAZ-REYES

824 Saxon Trace Way Apt. 105

Altamonte Springs, FL 32763

and

KARETTA PARTRIDGE

3918 33rd Street NE

Canton, OH 44705

On behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly-situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SYNCHRONY BANK

c/o Statutory Agent Ct Corporation System

4400 Easton Commons Way Suite 125

Columbus, OH 43219

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 

JUDGE 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

(Jury Demand Endorsed Herein)

Now come Plaintiffs Mary Mason, Yahaira Diaz-Reyes, and Karetta Partridge, and for 

their Complaint against Synchrony Bank, state and allege the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a “collective action” instituted by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant’s 

practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and 

other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards 

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 1
2

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as well as a “class action” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to 

remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”), R.C. 4111.03.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ OMFWSA claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because the claims are so related to the FLSA claims as to form part 

of the same case or controversy.

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant conducts 

business throughout this District and Division and Defendant maintains a physical location in 

this District and Division.

PARTIES

5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Mary Mason (“Plaintiff Mason”), was a 

citizen of the United States and a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio.

6. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Yahaira Diaz-Reyes (“Plaintiff DiazReyes”), was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Seminole County, Florida.

7. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Karetta Partridge (“Plaintiff Partridge”), was 

a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stark County, Ohio.

8. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. 203(e) and R.C. 4111.03(D)(3). 

9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Synchrony Bank was a foreign 

corporation, licensed to business in the State of Ohio, organized and existing under the laws of 

the State of Connecticut, conducting business throughout the United States, including in this 

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2
3

District and Division, and having its principal place of business in Ohio at 950 Forrer Blvd, 

Kettering, in Montgomery County.

10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d) and R.C. 4111.03(D)(2).

11. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 

29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

12. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an enterprise engaged in commerce or 

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

13. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were employees engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207 as they used 

tools, products, and equipment that traveled in interstate commerce. 

14. Written consents to join this action as to Count One, as and when executed by 

other individual plaintiffs, will be filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. Defendant is a national bank that provides financial products and services to its 

customers and owns and operates a number of call centers that provide customer support services 

to its customers.

16. Plaintiff Mason was employed by Defendant as a Customer Service 

Representative between November 14, 2014 and August 7, 2017 at Defendant’s Kettering, Ohio 

call center.

17. Plaintiff Diaz-Reyes was employed by Defendant as a Collections Representative 

between June 6, 2016 and February 17, 2017 at Defendant’s Altamonte Springs, Florida call 

center.

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 3
4

18. Plaintiff Partridge was employed by Defendant as a Fraud Representative between 

April 15, 2015 and June 15, 2016 at Defendant’s Canton, Ohio call center. 

19. Other similarly-situated employees were employed by Defendant as Customer 

Service Representatives, Collections Representatives, and Fraud Representatives in call centers 

located throughout the United States.

20. Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees were classified by Defendant as 

non-exempt employees. 

21. Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees were paid by Defendant on an 

hourly basis.

(Failure to Pay For Time Spent Starting and Logging Into 

Computer Systems, Applications, and Phone System)

22. Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant to 

perform unpaid work before clocking in each day, including, but not limited to, starting, booting 

up, and logging into Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone 

systems. 

23. By common policy and practice, Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees 

were required to have their computers booted up and have several applications running before 

the start of their shifts so that they could take their first call promptly upon commencing work at 

their scheduled start times.

24. Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by Plaintiffs and other 

similarly-situated employees as “hours worked.”

25. Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees performed this unpaid work 

every workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time.

26. Plaintiffs estimate that they spent approximately 15-20 minutes before their shift 

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 4
5

start times clocking in each day, including but not limited to starting and logging into 

Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone systems.

27. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees 

was practically ascertainable to Defendant.

28. There was no practical administrative difficulty of recording this unpaid work of 

Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees. It could have been precisely recorded for 

payroll purposes simply by allowing them to clock in before they began booting up Defendant’s 

computer systems, applications, and phone systems.

29. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees 

constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for 

Defendant’s benefit. 

30. Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part of other 

principle activities performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees. They could 

not perform their work without booting up Defendant’s computer systems, applications, and 

phone systems.

31. Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated inbound sales representatives for starting and logging into Defendant’s computer 

systems, numerous software applications, and phone systems, during which they performed work 

that managers and/or other agents and/or representatives observed.

(Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)

32. As a result of Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees not being paid for 

all hours worked, Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime 

compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 5
6

33. Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of 

the FLSA. 

(Failure to Keep Accurate Records)

34. Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work 

performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees before clocking in each day.

35. The amount of time Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees spent on 

their required and unpaid work before clocking in amounted to approximately 15-20 minutes 

when Defendant’s computer systems were working properly, or longer when Defendant’s 

computer systems were slow or not working.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

36. Plaintiffs bring Count One of the action on their own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will 

be adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

37. The class which Plaintiffs seek to represent and for whom Plaintiffs seek the right 

to “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiffs themselves are 

members, is composed of and defined as follows:

All former and current Customer Service Representatives, 

Collections Representatives, and Fraud Representatives employed 

by Synchrony Bank in a call center nationwide between September 

8, 2014 and the present.

38. Plaintiffs are unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but 

upon information and belief aver that it consists of several hundred persons. 

39. This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) as to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ 

fees and costs under the FLSA. In addition to Plaintiffs, numerous current and former 

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 6
7

employees are similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and 

damages. Plaintiffs are representatives of those other employees and are acting on behalf of their 

interests, as well as their own, in bringing this action.

40. These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily 

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

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

collectively adjudicating their claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated 

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

41. Plaintiffs bring Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all other members of the class (“the Ohio Class”) defined as:

All former and current Customer Service Representatives, 

Collections Representatives, and Fraud Representatives employed 

by Synchrony Bank in a call center in Ohio between September 8, 

2014 and the present.

42. The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. 

Plaintiffs are unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon 

information and belief, avers that it consists of at least several hundred persons.

43. There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not 

limited to the following:

(a) whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its 

Customer Service Representatives, Collections 

Representatives, and Fraud Representatives for hours worked 

in excess of 40 each workweek; and

(b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiffs 

Mary Mason, Yahaira Diaz-Reyes, and Karetta Partridge, and 

other members of the class for Defendant’s violation of R.C. 

4111.03 and 4111.10.

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 7
8

44. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of other members of

the Ohio Class. Named Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by 

Defendant, and are based on the same legal theories, as the claims of the other Ohio Class 

members.

45. Named Plaintiffs Mary Mason, Yahaira Diaz-Reyes, and Karetta Partridge, will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class. Their interests are not antagonistic 

to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of the other Ohio Class members. The named 

Plaintiffs’ counsel has broad experience in handling class action wage-and-hour litigation, and is 

fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this case.

46. 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 

Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.

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

adjudication of this controversy. Requiring Ohio 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 Ohio Class members’ claims are 

sufficiently small that they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of 

pursuing their claims individually. Certification of this case 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

(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 8
9

herein.

49. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 207, 29 CFR § 785.24.

50. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate 

of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

207.

51. Defendant’s failure to keep records of all of the hours worked each workday and 

the total hours worked each workweek by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees 

violated the FLSA, 29 CFR 516.2(a)(7).

52. By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly 

and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.

53. As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them 

pursuant to the FLSA.

COUNT TWO

(Violations of Ohio Revised Code 4111.03)

54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein.

55. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the OMFWSA, R.C. 

4111.03.

56. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarlyCase: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 9
10

situated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate 

of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the OMFWSA, R.C. 

4111.03.

57. By failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees’ overtime 

compensation, Defendant willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the 

OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03.

58. As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them 

pursuant to the OMFWSA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, collectively pray that this 

Honorable Court:

A. Issue an order permitting this litigation to proceed as a collective action pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and certifying the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 23(a) and (b)(3);

B. Order prompt notice, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to all class members that 

this litigation is pending and that they have the right to “opt in” to this litigation;

C. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent actual damages for unpaid overtime 

compensation;

D. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent liquidated damages equal in amount 

to the unpaid overtime compensation found due to Plaintiffs and the classes;

E. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent pre- and post-judgment interest at 

the statutory rate;

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 10
11

F. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

disbursements; and

G. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent further and additional relief as this 

Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Lori M. Griffin

Lori M. Griffin (0085241)

Chastity L. Christy (0076977)

Anthony J. Lazzaro (0077962)

The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC

920 Rockefeller Building

614 W. Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Phone: 216-696-5000

Facsimile: 216-696-7005 

lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all eligible claims and issues.

 /s/ Lori M. Griffin

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 3:17-cv-00314-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/08/17 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 11