Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Doniele Smith,

784 S. Broadleigh Rd., Apt. G 

Columbus, Ohio 43209

On behalf of herself and other 

members of the general public 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHS Employment Services, LLC

dba Continuing Healthcare Solutions

c/o Benjamin J. Parsons

5990 Venture Dr., Suite A

Dublin, Ohio 43017

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Case No. 2:17-cv-1077

Judge

Magistrate Judge 

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OHIO LAW

Now comes Doniele Smith (“Plaintiff,” “Named Plaintiff,” or “Plaintiff Smith”), through 

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

situated, for her complaint against CHS Employment Services, LLC (“Defendant CHS,” 

“Defendant,” or “CHS”) 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 (the Ohio Wage Act and the 

OPPA 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 
Page 2 of 17

to the Named Plaintiff’s own conduct and are made on information and belief as to 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, 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 Doniele Smith 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 licensed 

State-Tested Nurse Aide (“STNA”) from approximately November 2015 through May 2017. 

6. Plaintiff began working as an STNA at the Isabelle Ridgway Care Center

(hereafter “Isabelle Ridgway”) located at 1520 Hawthorne Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43203 in 

approximately November of 2015. 
Page 3 of 17

7. Defendant owned and operated Isabelle Ridgway until it sold the same in or 

around May of 2017. 

8. As an STNA, Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant as 

defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

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

properly paid for all of her compensable hours worked because Defendant did not properly 

calculate her regular rate of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime wages. 

10. 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 compensation under the FLSA. Plaintiff Smith’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 

Exhibit A).

11. Defendant CHS Employment Services, LLC (“Defendant CHS” or “CHS”) is a 

domestic for-profit company doing business as Continuing Healthcare Solutions and previously 

owned and operated the Isabelle Ridgway facility located at 1520 Hawthorne Ave., Columbus, 

Ohio 43203. Defendant CHS’s principal place of business is located at 7261 Engle Road, Ste. 

200, Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130. 

12. According to its website1, Defendant CHS is a network of communities that offers

a range of senior living options including assisted living, skilled nursing and rehabilitation, longterm care, respite care and Alzheimer’s care, including Isabelle Ridgeway.

13. 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 

 

1 See http://continuinghc.com, last visited December 12, 2017. 
Page 4 of 17

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).

14. 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 laws of the 

United States and of the State of Ohio.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an STNA 

from approximately November 2015 through May 2017.

16. As an STNA, Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant as 

defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

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

properly paid for all of her compensable hours worked because Defendant did not properly 

calculate her regular rate of pay for the purposes of lawfully paying her for her overtime hours 

worked, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.

18. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours in a 

workweek.

19. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were compensated on an hourly, 

not a salary or fee basis.

20. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received compensation at an 

hourly rate for all hours worked, plus additional remuneration which constituted 

nondiscretionary bonuses for work performed during specific shift(s) and/or day(s) when its 

employees covered or worked certain shifts.
Page 5 of 17

21. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely earned additional 

remuneration to their hourly compensation in the form of nondiscretionary bonuses.

22. The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act required Defendant to pay overtime compensation 

to its employees at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for the hours they worked 

in excess of forty. 29 U.S.C. § 207; O.R.C. §§ 4111.03, 4111.10.

23. Defendant did not pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and/or similarly 

situated employees at the time-and-a-half regular rate required. The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act 

required Defendant to pay overtime compensation to its hourly employees at one and one-half 

times their “regular rate” of pay, and to include in the calculation of their regular rates “all 

remunerations for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(e);

O.R.C. § 4111.03(A) (incorporating FLSA standards).

24. Defendant unlawfully excluded the additional remuneration that was paid to 

Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and the Ohio Class in determining their 

“regular rates” for purposes of overtime compensation during weeks wherein they worked more 

than forty (40) hours. Defendant thereby miscalculated their regular rates and underpaid their 

overtime compensation.

25. Defendant is an “employer” of Plaintiff and others similarly situated as that term 

is defined by the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.

26. 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. 

27. During relevant times, Defendant had knowledge of and acted willfully regarding 

its conduct described herein.
Page 6 of 17

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

from which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.

29. Plaintiff neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two or 

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

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

independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

31. At all times, 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. 

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

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

33. 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 rate for all hours worked 

over 40 in a workweek. 

34. 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 be 

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

compensate its employees during all times relevant.

35. Defendant’s failure to fully and properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

employees resulted in unpaid overtime wages.

IV.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.
Page 7 of 17

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

representative action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in 

class, consisting of:

All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of 

Defendant who received remuneration payments in addition to 

their normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that they 

worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years 

preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing through 

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

“§216(b) Class Members”).

37. 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 withheld in violation of the FLSA, liquidated 

damages, and attorneys' fees. 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 policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating its employees at the proper 

overtime rate during workweeks when they received remuneration payments in addition to their 

normal hourly rate of pay. 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.

38. 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.

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

failed to fully and properly pay Named Plaintiff and §216(b) Class Members overtime wages. 
Page 8 of 17

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.

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

41. Named Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as 

a class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated of the following class, 

consisting of:

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

Defendant who received remuneration payments in addition to 

their normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that they 

worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years 

preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing through 

the date of final disposition of this case (the “Ohio Rule 23 Class,” 

the “Rule 23 Class,” or the “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).

42. During relevant times, Plaintiff and those 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 policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating its employees 

at the proper overtime rate during workweeks when they received remuneration payments in 

addition to their normal hourly rate of pay. 

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

members is impracticable.

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

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

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

the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.
Page 9 of 17

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

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

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

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

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

49. 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.

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

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.

51. 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. 

52. 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 their correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week 

as a result of Defendant’s failure to properly calculate the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ regular 

rate of pay when they received remuneration payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of 

pay; (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 
Page 10 of 17

and willful; (d) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld 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 Wage Act; 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. 

53. 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, 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.

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 preceding this Complaint, Defendant employed 

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

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

when working in non-exempt positions.
Page 11 of 17

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. Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e), “regular rate” of pay shall be broadly deemed to 

include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee 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.

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

inter alia, she was not an “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employee, 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.

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

per week during all times relevant.

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

correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek during the three 

years from the filing date of this Complaint.
Page 12 of 17

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 hours worked over forty (40) hours in workweeks because Defendant did not 

properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration payments in the 

form of nondiscretionary bonuses in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.

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

the FLSA. 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 overtime compensation that Defendant 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 herself and the 216(b) Class Members.

COUNT II

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

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

71. This claim is brought under Ohio Law. 

72. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed 

by Defendant, and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio 

law.
Page 13 of 17

73. 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).

74. The Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class worked in excess of the maximum 

weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not correctly paid their overtime rate

for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in workweeks that they received remuneration 

payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.

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

paying its hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over 

forty (40) hours in workweeks that employees received remuneration payments in the form of 

nondiscretionary bonuses in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay resulted in unpaid 

overtime wages for the Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class.

76. Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the 

wage protections of Ohio Law.

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

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

correct regular rates for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because Defendant

did not properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration 

payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.

78. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage 

protections of Ohio law. Indeed, during relevant times, the Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 
Page 14 of 17

Class Members were not exempt from receiving overtime because, inter alia, they were not 

“executive,” “administrative,” “professional,” “outside sales” or “computer” employees, as those 

terms are defined under the FLSA. See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.0, et 

seq.

79. 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. 

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

those similarly situated Ohioans have suffered and continue to suffer damages; the Named 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, 

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

COUNT III

(R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO 

PROMPT PAY ACT)

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

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

been employed by Defendant. 

83. 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. 

84. The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class 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 
Page 15 of 17

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).

85. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid 

all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay within 

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

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

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

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

continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.

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

with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

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 and properly calculating the overtime rate during workweeks they received

remuneration payments in the form of nondiscretionary bonuses in addition to their normal 

hourly rate of pay for Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class as described herein violates the 

FLSA;
Page 16 of 17

D. 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.;

E. 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 Named Plaintiff and all other 

similarly situated employees during the applicable statutory period;

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

with this action;

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

or any other method approved by the Court;

H. Judgment for all civil penalties to which Plaintiff and all other similarly situated 

employees may be entitled; and

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

WHEREFORE, as to Counts II and III, Named Plaintiff requests judgment against 

Defendant for violations of the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA, and for an Order:

J. 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;

K. 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;
Page 17 of 17

L. Awarding Named Plaintiff, the Ohio Rule 23 Class members such other and 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper;

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; and

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

and future violations of the Ohio Acts.

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

 Peter Contreras (0087530)

CONTRERAS LAW, LLC

PO Box 215

Amlin, Ohio 43002

Phone: 614-787-4878

Fax: 614-923-7369

Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

Attorneys for Named Plaintiff and similarly 

situated employees

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