1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Misti Adams

330 Trace Dr., Apt. 301 

Lancaster, Ohio 43130

Individually and on behalf of 

other members of the general 

public similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC

2615 E. Dublin Granville Rd. 

Columbus, Ohio 43231 

-andCentral Ohio Elderly Care Plus, LLC

2615 E. Dublin Granville Rd. 

Columbus, Ohio 43231 

-and- 

 

Osman Hassan, individually 

2615 E. Dublin Granville Rd. 

Columbus, Ohio 43231 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-134

JUDGE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Now comes Plaintiff Misti Adams (referred to herein as “Class Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff 

Adams”), individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, 

for her complaint against Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC (“COEC”), Central Ohio Elderly Care 

Plus, LLC (“COEC PLUS”) and Osman Hassan (“Hassan”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking 

all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 2 of 20

seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111.01, 4111.03, 4111.08, and 

4111.10 (“the Ohio Wage Act”); 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); the 

claims pursuant to O.R.C. 4111.01, 4111.03, 4111.08, 4111.10 and the OPPA are brought as a 

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

to Plaintiff’s own conduct and are made on information and belief as to the acts of others. Class 

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 Acts, 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 

jointly employed the Class 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 Defendants have done substantial business in the Southern District of Ohio. 

II. PARTIES

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

5. The Named Class Plaintiff, Misti Adams, is an individual, United States citizen, 

and a resident of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio.

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 2
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 3 of 20

6. Plaintiff Adams was jointly employed by all Defendants from approximately 

January, 2015 until she was terminated on October 26, 2017. Plaintiff Adams worked as a home 

health aide and was compensated at a regular hourly rate of $11.00 per hour at the time her 

employment ended. 

7. At all times relevant herein, Class Plaintiff Adams was an employee of 

Defendants as defined in the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

8. The Class Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants at all 

times relevant as defined in the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

9. The Class Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf 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. The Class Plaintiff’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.)

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

is defined by the FLSA, O.R.C. Chapter 4111, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

11. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have been jointly engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and/or the business activities of 

Defendants constituted an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA. 

12. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ joint employees were engaged in 

interstate commerce and Defendants had annual gross volume sales and/or business in an amount 

not less than $500,000.00.

13. During relevant times, Defendants jointly suffered and permitted Class Plaintiff

and those similarly situated to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while not 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 3
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 4 of 20

compensating them for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one-half 

times their regular rates.

14. 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. 

15. During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully 

regarding their conduct described herein.

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

from which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.

17.

18. Defendant Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC (“Defendant COEC” or “COEC”) is a 

domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business in the Southern District of 

Ohio. Defendant COEC operates a home care staffing agency of direct care workers for the 

elderly and/or disabled who are in need of in home assistance. Defendant COEC may be served 

through its Registered Agent Osman Hassan at 2615 E. Dublin Granville Rd., Columbus, Ohio 

43231. 

19. Defendant Central Ohio Elderly Care Plus, LLC (“Defendant COEC PLUS” or

“COEC PLUS”) is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

the Southern District of Ohio. Defendant COEC PLUS operates a home care staffing agency of 

direct care workers for the elderly and/or disabled who are in need of in home assistance. 

Defendant COEC PLUS may be served through its Registered Agent Osman Hassan. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 4
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 5 of 20

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Osman Hassan (“Defendant Hassan” or 

“Hassan”) is an individual, a United States Citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio. 

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Osman Hassan is the Chief Executive 

Officer (“CEO”) of Defendants COEC and COEC PLUS, and is believed to be the owner of 

COEC and COEC PLUS. Defendant Hassan is also the statutory agent of Defendants COEC and 

COEC PLUS. 

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

is defined by the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

23. During relevant times, Defendant Hassan, as CEO, founder and owner, has had

operational control over significant aspects of the day-to-day functions of Defendant COEC and 

COEC PLUS, including the day-to-day functions of Plaintiff. 

24. During relevant times, Defendant Hassan has had the authority to hire, fire and 

discipline employees, including Plaintiff. 

25. During relevant times, Defendant Hassan has had the authority to set rates and 

methods of compensation of Plaintiff.

26. During relevant times, Defendant Hassan has had the authority to control the 

work schedule and employment conditions of Plaintiff. 

27. During relevant times, Defendant Hassan has had ultimate authority and control 

of employment records.

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

performed by Plaintiff. 

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

other and have not been completely disassociated with respect to Plaintiff. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 5
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 6 of 20

30. During relevant times, Defendants shared the services of Plaintiff.

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

each other in relation to Plaintiff. 

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

aware of the fact that they are legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment 

laws of the United States and of the State of Ohio as well as recordkeeping laws of the State of 

Ohio. 

33. During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully in regard

to their conduct described herein.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

34. During her employment with Defendants, Class Plaintiff Adams worked as a 

home health aide. Class Plaintiff Adams primary duties were providing companionship services, 

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

35. Class Plaintiff Adams regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not 

paid one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours worked over 40.

36. After the law change and elimination of a previous exemption for home health 

aides effective January 1, 2015, Defendants have failed to comply and properly pay all overtime 

wages due to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. 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.

a. Defendants failed to properly pay all overtime wages owed by issuing 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees two (2) separate 

paychecks each pay period. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 6
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 7 of 20

37. Defendants did/do not pay their employees one and one-half times their regular 

hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek because they pay their employees 

through two entities and distribute the hours worked between the entities.

38. Each pay period Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees worked 

for Defendants, they received one check from Defendant COEC for some, but not all, hours 

worked for Defendants during the pay period. A true and accurate copy of a check dated March 

31, 2017 from Defendant COEC for pay period March 12, 2017 through March 25, 2017 is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B.

39. Each pay period Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees worked 

for Defendants, they received a separate check from Defendant COEC PLUS for some, but not 

all, hours worked for Defendants during the pay period. A true and accurate copy of a check 

dated March 31, 2017 from Defendant COEC PLUS for pay period March 12, 2017 through 

March 25, 2017 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

40. Defendants required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to track their

time on separate timesheets and to split their compensable hours worked between the two (2) 

timesheets and/or time tracking systems1. 

41. Some of the hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for 

Defendants were recorded on one (1) timesheet and/or time tracking system and were later paid

by Defendant COEC. See Exhibit B. 

42. Additional hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for 

Defendants were recorded on another timesheet and/or time tracking system and were later paid 

by Defendant COEC PLUS. See Exhibit C. 

 

1 However, Defendants did not permit Plaintiff or other hourly employees to record their compensable travel time or 

pay them for time spent traveling as discussed, infra. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 7
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 8 of 20

43. Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

employees for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week by requiring Plaintiff 

and other similarly situated employees to divide their total hours worked for Defendants into two 

(2) separate timesheets and/or time tracking systems. 

44. Defendants failed to account for the total number of compensable hours and 

overtime hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for Defendants when 

both of Defendants’ timesheets and/or time tracking systems are considered. 

45. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any 

overtime wages owed when neither of the two (2) individual timesheets and/or time tracking 

systems showed Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ compensable hours as greater 

than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty (80) per two weeks, even though the combined total 

of both timesheets and/or time tracking systems demonstrated Plaintiff’s and other similarly 

situated employees’ total compensable hours worked per week for Defendants consistently 

exceeded forty (40) per week. 

46. By paying Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees with two (2) 

separate paychecks each pay period and by requiring multiple timesheets and/or time tracking 

systems for work performed for Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate them for all hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) per week at one and one-half times Plaintiff’s and other similarly 

situated employees’ regular rate of pay. 

b. Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated employees one and a half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay 

for all overtime hours by reducing their regular hourly rate and by 

paying overtime wages based upon the reduced hourly rate. 

47. When Defendants paid “overtime”, they further failed to properly pay Plaintiff

and other similarly situated employees at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate because 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 8
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 9 of 20

Defendants reduced their employees’ pay rate for overtime and non-overtime hours in such 

workweeks. Then, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at one and 

one-half times the reduced hourly rate of pay instead of paying them one and one-half times their

regular rate of pay. Examples of how Defendants applied their companywide policy of reducing 

their employees’ hourly rate of pay to make it appear as though they were paying overtime are 

set forth more fully below.

48. By September of 2016, Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay was $10.50 per hour. 

49. As long as Plaintiff’s recorded hours for each of the two (2) separate timesheets 

and/or time tracking systems did not exceed forty (40) per week and/or eighty (80) per pay 

period, Defendants paid Plaintiff her regular rate of $10.50 per hour for all hours worked.

2

50. However, if Plaintiff recorded more than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty 

(80) per pay period on either of the dual time tracking systems, Defendants then reduced her 

regular rate of pay to a lower hourly rate. 

51. Defendants then paid both Plaintiff’s regular wages at this lower hourly rate and 

some overtime wages at one and a half (1.5) times this reduced hourly rate. See Exhibit D and 

Exhibit E, paystubs from both Defendants COEC PLUS and COEC, respectively, dated 

November 23, 2016 for pay period November 6, 2016 through November 19, 2016. 

52. Defendants reduced Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate from $10.50 per hour to $10.40 

per hour on the paycheck from Defendant COEC PLUS for this period when her recorded 

compensable hours totaled eighty-three (83) hours. Defendants paid Plaintiff for eighty (80) 

hours at $10.40 per hour and for three (3) hours at one and a half (1.5) times that rate, or $15.60 

per hour. See Exhibit D. 

 

2 However, Defendants still failed to pay overtime wages due and owing as a result of their improper dual time 

tracking systems discussed in the preceding section.

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 9
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 10 of 20

53. Defendants did not reduce Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate on the paycheck from 

Defendant COEC for that same pay period where her recorded compensable hours for one time 

tracking system totaled sixty-three (63) hours. See Exhibit E.

54. For pay period March 12, 2017 through March 25, 2017, Defendants reduced 

Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay from $10.50 per hour to $9.95 per hour when her recorded 

compensable hours totaled ninety-one (91) hours on her paycheck from Defendant COEC. 

Defendants then paid her eleven (11) hours of overtime based on this reduced hourly rate at a 

rate of $14.925 per hour instead of $15.75 per hour as required3. See Exhibit B. 

55. For the same pay period, Defendant did not reduce Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay 

of $10.50 per hour on her paycheck from Defendant COEC PLUS when her recorded 

compensable hours totaled sixty-six and a half (66.5) hours for that pay period. See Exhibit C. 

56. By reducing Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ regular hourly rate 

of pay when they recorded more than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty (80) per pay period

on either of the dual time tracking systems, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated employees for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week at one and 

one-half times Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ respective regular rates of pay. 

c. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for travel 

time to and from worksites during their workdays resulting in unpaid overtime 

wages. 

57. Defendants additionally failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated

employees for travel time to and from worksites, as well as travel between worksites even though 

they regularly worked at more than one worksite each workday. 

 

3 Additionally overtime wages were still owed, however, due to Defendants’ other overtime violations. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 10
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 11 of 20

58. Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees frequently traveled 

throughout their workdays attending to multiple patients at different locations each workday, 

often traveling to different cities and/or counties throughout the same workday. 

59. Defendants were aware of the daily travel, but they failed to compensate Plaintiff 

and other similarly situated employees for their travel time. 

60. As a result of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated

employees for their travel time, Defendants failed to pay their employees overtime wages for all

compensable hours worked.

IV. COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

61. The Class Plaintiff brings her FLSA claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of her and all other Similarly Situated Persons (“SSPs”) of the 

opt-in class, consisting of:

All current and former employees of Defendants who worked over 

40 hours in any workweek beginning three years immediately 

preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of final 

disposition of this case, and were not paid one and one-half times

their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 because (i)

Defendants divided their hours worked between two entities and

paid them with two (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or 

(ii) Defendants reduced their employees’ regular rate of pay;

and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time (the “216(b) 

Class” or the “216(b) Class Members”).

62. Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class include, but 

may not be limited to, direct support professionals, support specialists, caregivers, home health 

aides, aides, licensed nurse practitioners, hourly registered nurses, and other employees who 

provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services for 

Defendants. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 11
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 12 of 20

63. 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 Class Plaintiff, 

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

to Defendants’ joint company-wide payroll policies and practices. The Class Plaintiff is

representative of those other similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of her interests 

as well as their own in bringing this action.

64. 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. 

65. The Class 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 members of the following class: 

All current and former employees of Defendants who worked over 

40 hours in any workweek beginning three years immediately 

preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of final 

disposition of this case, and were not paid one and one-half times

their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 because (i)

Defendants divided their hours worked between two entities and

paid them with two (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or 

(ii) Defendants reduced their employees’ regular rate of pay;

and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time (the “Rule 23

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

66. The Rule 23 Class includes, but may not be limited to, direct support 

professionals, support specialists, caregivers, home health aides, aides, licensed nurse 

practitioners, hourly registered nurses, and other employees who provided companionship 

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 12
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 13 of 20

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

is impracticable.

68. The Class Plaintiff is a member of the Rule 23 Class and her claims for unpaid 

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

69. The Class Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Rule 23 Class and the 

interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.

70. The Class Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those 

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

71. The Class Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel 

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

72. Questions of law and fact are common to the 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.

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 Rule 23 Class, making appropriate 

declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the 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 Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual 

members of the 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 Rule 23 Class include, but are 

not limited to: (a) whether Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Rule 23 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 13
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 14 of 20

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

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

calculated the Rule 23 Class's 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 

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

the Ohio Wage Act; and (f) what amount of prejudgment interest is due to 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 Class Plaintiff’s claim and will prevent undue financial, administrative and 

procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Class Plaintiff and counsel are not aware of any 

pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the 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 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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

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 Class Plaintiff on behalf 

of herself and the 216(b) Class. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 14
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 15 of 20

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 Class Plaintiff and/or the 216(b) Class Members.

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

when working in non-exempt positions.

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

40 hours in a workweek.

84. Defendants jointly violated the FLSA with respect to Class Plaintiff and the 

216(b) Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at one and one-half times their regular 

rates of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek as a result of their FLSAviolating policies explained more fully above.

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

receiving FLSA overtime benefits.

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 Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Collective Members are entitled.

87. Defendants knowingly, willfully and jointly failed to pay the Class Plaintiff and 

the 216(b) Class Members the overtime wages they were due.

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

Defendants have failed to pay the Class Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members is unknown at 

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 15
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 16 of 20

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’ joint conduct, the Class Plaintiff

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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

R.C. 4111.03 — 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.

92. The Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed 

by Defendants, and Defendants are employers 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 jointly employed by Defendants, the Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class 

Members 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.

95. As a result of Defendants’ company-wide corporate policies, they failed to pay 

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members overtime wages beginning in January 1, 2015 when the 

exemption was eliminated for third party employers, resulting in unpaid overtime.

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 16
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 17 of 20

96. Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage protections 

of Ohio law.

97. Defendants’ repeated, knowing and joint failure to pay overtime wages to the

Class Plaintiff were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such, Defendants willfully withheld and 

failed to pay the overtime compensation to which Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members

are entitled. 

98. For Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, the Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 

Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Class Plaintiff seeks unpaid 

overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other 

remedies available, on behalf of herself and the Rule 23 Class Members.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

R.C. 4113.15 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION

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

100. The Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed 

by Defendants.

101. During relevant times, Defendants were entities covered by the OPPA and the 

Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendants within the 

meaning of the OPPA.

102. The OPPA requires that the Defendants jointly pay Class Plaintiff’s and the Rule 

23 Class Members’ all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each 

month, for wages earned by her 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).

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 17
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 18 of 20

103. During relevant times, Class Plaintiff and the 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).

104. The Class Plaintiff’s and the Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain 

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

105. In violating the OPPA, Defendants acted willfully, jointly, without a good faith 

basis and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT

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

107. 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.

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

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

109. Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members were covered employee entitled 

to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.

110. During times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly violated the Ohio 

Wage Act with respect to Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members by failing to 

properly maintain accurate records of all hours Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class 

Members worked each workday and within each workweek.

111. In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants jointly acted willfully and with 

reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 18
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 19 of 20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, 

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. Finding that Defendants have failed to keep accurate records in accordance with 

the FLSA and Ohio law, Class Plaintiff, 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 Class Plaintiff 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 Class Plaintiff 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;

G. Awarding Class Plaintiff, the FLSA 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 Class Plaintiff, the FLSA 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 Ohio Law;

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 19
Class Complaint – Adams v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-134

Page 20 of 20

J. Granting the Named Plaintiff leave to amend to file additional claims for relief or 

different causes of action should information become available through investigation and 

discovery; and 

K. Rendering a judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, 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

Telephone: 614-949-1181

Facsimile: 614-386-9964

Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

/s/ Peter Contreras

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 Class Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated

JURY DEMAND

Class Plaintiff requests a trial by a jury of eight (8) persons.

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman

Case: 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 20