1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANNIE RAINES, on behalf of herself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SALO, INC. d/b/a INTERIM 

HEALTHCARE 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-209 

JUDGE: 

PLAINTIFF’S CLASS AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

HEREON 

Plaintiff, Annie Raines, by and through the undersigned counsel, for her Class and 

Collective Action Complaint against Defendant Salo, Inc. d/b/a Interim Healthcare, states and 

alleges the following: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This case challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair 

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

compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03. Defendant has also violated Ohio Rev. 

Code Ann. § 4113.15, as it has failed to pay wages due within thirty days. 

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 this case pursuant to § 

216(b) (“Potential Opt-Ins”). 
2

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 factuallyrelated claims under Ohio wage-and-hour statutes (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 claims under Ohio wageand-hour statutes because those claims are so related to the FLSA claims as to form part of the 

same case or controversy. 

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

1391(b) because Defendant is domiciled in this District. 

PARTIES 

7. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Annie Raines was a citizen of the United States. 

She worked as a caregiver in people’s homes as an employee of Defendant. 

8. At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and corresponding provisions of Ohio law including the Ohio 

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

4113.15 requiring semi-monthly payment of wages.

9. Defendant’s non-exempt employees included 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. 

10. At all times relevant, Defendant 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).
3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Non-Exempt Employees’ 

11. 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 are current or former non-exempt employees of 

Defendant who were paid on an hourly basis and not paid overtime compensation for all hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) in certain workweeks. 

12. Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), and the members of the Ohio Class frequently worked more than forty (40) hours in a 

single workweek, many times in excess of ten per week, entitling them to overtime compensation 

under the FLSA and Ohio wage-and-hour statutes. 

Defendant’s Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 

13. The FLSA, and Ohio law required Defendant to pay overtime compensation to its 

home healthcare workers including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class. 

14. Defendant unlawfully failed to pay all overtime compensation due to its home 

healthcare workers including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.

15. Specifically, and among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the 

Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class any compensation for the time spent traveling during the 

work day, in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous workday rule. 

16. Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, Plaintiff, the Potential 

Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class was entitled to overtime pay under state and/or federal law. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein. 
4

18. 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.”

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

Defendant’s FLSA violations consist of: 

All present and former home healthcare employees of Defendant during 

the period beginning three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to 

the present, who were not paid overtime compensation for all hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) in one workweek. 

20. Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations 

in that all were non-exempt employees of Defendant, all were subjected to and injured by 

Defendant’s unlawful practice of failing to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) in one workweek, and all have the same claims against Defendant for unpaid 

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

21. 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 Court-authorized notice 

informing them of the pendency of this action and giving them the opportunity to “opt in.”

22. Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons but avers, 

upon information and belief, that they consist of over 40 persons. Such persons are readily 

identifiable through the payroll records Defendant 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. 
5

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

(Ohio Class) 

23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein.

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

behalf of themselves and other members of a class of persons who assert claims under the laws 

of the State of Ohio (the “Ohio Class”), defined as: 

All present and former home healthcare employees of Defendant who 

were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 

forty (40) in one workweek during the period beginning two years 

preceding the filing of this litigation to the present. 

25. 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 it consists of over 40 persons. The number of class members as well as their 

identities are ascertainable from the payroll records Defendant 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. 

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

limited to: 

Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members 

all overtime pay due to them, including, but not limited to, all 

travel time required to be paid pursuant to the continuous work day 

rule? 

Whether Defendant kept adequate records of the hours worked by 

Plaintiff and the other class members? 

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

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant, and are based 

on the same legal theories, as the claims of other class members. 
6

28. 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’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action litigation, 

including wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio 

Class in this case. 

29. 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 class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. 

30. 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, 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 Overtime Violations) 

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein. 

32. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s 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) has 

been filed with the Court. 
7

33. Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins should have been paid overtime compensation 

at the rate of one-half times their “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per 

workweek. 

34. Defendant failed to pay all overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the 

Potential Opt-Ins for certain workweeks. 

35. Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the 

Potential Opt-Ins for all time traveling in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous 

work day rule. 

36. By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and 

regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law. 

37. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Potential OptIns were injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the 

FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime compensation” as well 

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

“[t]he court ... shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a 

reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.” 

COUNT TWO 

(Ohio Overtime Violations)

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein. 

39. 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 who may join this 

case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and all members of the Ohio Class for which certification is 

sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 
8

40. At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime 

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

41. Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code 

Ann. § 4111.03, by failing to pay all overtime compensation to its home healthcare workers 

including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class. 

42. Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the 

Potential Opt-Ins for all time traveling in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous 

work day rule. 

43. Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff, the 

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

compensation due to them pursuant to that statute. 

44. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Defendant, 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 THREE 

(Violations of Ohio Revised Code 4113.15) 

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully written 

herein. 

46. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of Ohio Revised Code 4113.15, on behalf 

of herself, and all members of the Ohio Class for which certification is sought pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23. 

47. At all times relevant, Defendant was Plaintiff and the Ohio Class’ employer for 

purposes of overtime compensation owed. 
9

48. Defendant violated Ohio Revised Code 4113.15, by failing to pay overtime 

compensation to its home healthcare workers including Plaintiff and the Ohio Class within thirty 

days of their regularly scheduled payday. 

49. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4113.15 provides that Defendant, having violated § 

4113.15, “is liable to the employee in the amount equal to six per cent of the amount of the claim 

still unpaid and not in contest or disputed or two hundred dollars, whichever is greater.” 

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 similarlysituated 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 Defendant 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, as 

well as liquidated damages in an equal amount; 

E. Award Plaintiff her costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this action 

and such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 
10

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Hans A. Nilges 

Hans A. Nilges (0076017) 

Shannon M. Draher (0074304) 

NILGES DRAHER LLC 

4580 Stephen Circle, NW 

Suite 201 

Canton, Ohio 44718 

Telephone: (330) 470-4428 

Fax: (330) 754-1430 

Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com 

sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

JURY DEMAND 

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

 /s/ Hans A. Nilges 

 Hans A. Nilges