IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LISA RIEGEL, :

616 E. 6

th Street :

Marysville, OH 43040 : Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-1112

 :

 and : JUDGE

 :

ANYAH DAGENFIELD, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE

191 Chapelfield Rd., :

Gahanna, OH 43230 :

:

Plaintiffs, :

 :

v. :

:

KANA HOTELS, INC., :

c/o Registered Agent : Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon

Columbus Hotel Partnership LLC :

2700 Corporate Exchange Drive :

Columbus, OH 43231 :

: 

 and :

 :

ALPESH PATEL, :

2700 Corporate Exchange Drive :

Columbus, OH 43231 :

 :

Defendants. :

:

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiffs Lisa Riegel and Anyah Dagenfield (“Plaintiffs”) and proffer this 

Complaint for damages against Defendants Kana Hotels, Inc. and Alpesh Patel (hereinafter 

“Defendants”).

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. Chapter 4111 (“Chapter 

4111”).

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 

1332(e), which provide for original jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the law of the 

United States and over actions to secure equitable and other relief.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the statutory law of Ohio 

pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

4. Venue is proper in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Plaintiffs entered 

into an employment relationship with Defendants in the Southern District of Ohio and performed 

their job duties there, and Defendants are doing and have done substantial business in the Southern 

District of Ohio.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Riegel is an individual, a United States citizen, and a resident of the state of 

Ohio. Plaintiff Riegel resides in Union County, Ohio.

6. Plaintiff Dagenfield is an individual, a United States citizen, and a resident of the 

state of Ohio. Plaintiff Dagenfield resides in Franklin County, Ohio

7. Defendant Kana Hotels, Inc. is a foreign corporation registered to do business in 

Ohio. 

8. Defendant Patel is an individual. Upon information and belief, Defendant Patel owns, 

in whole or part, Defendant Kana Hotels, Inc.

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 2
3

9. At all timesrelevant herein, the Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants as that term 

is defined in the FLSA and O.R.C. Chapter 4111.

10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were covered employers as that term is 

defined in the FLSA and O.R.C. Chapter 4111.

11. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were 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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Plaintiff Riegel first began her employment with Defendantsin or around September 

2016. 

13. Plaintiff Dagenfield first began her employment with Defendants in or around 

September 2016.

14. Throughout Plaintiffs’ employment, they worked as bartenders at Defendants’ 

Embassy Suites Hotel, located at 2700 Corporate Exchange Dr, Columbus, OH 43231.

15. Plaintiffs were tipped employees.

16. Plaintiffs and other bartenders worked defined shifts.

17. Bartenders on a defined shift split tips evenly as part of a tip pool.

18. During all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs reported to the Bar Manager, Jessica 

McFarland.

19. As the Bar Manager, Ms. McFarland supervised and controlled the bartenders’ work 

schedules and conditions of employment, trained new bar employees, had the power to hire and fire 

bar employees, determined raises and promotions, and maintained the sales and time records for the 

bar employees. 

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 3
4

20. Ms. McFarland listed herself as a “bartender” on the schedules she created. 

21. On the shifts Ms. McFarland listed herself as a bartender on the schedule, she would 

take 50% of the tips.

22. On the shifts Ms. McFarland listed herself as a bartender on the schedule, she was the 

only Bar Manager scheduled. 

23. On the shifts Ms. McFarland listed herself as a bartender on the schedule, her primary 

duties and responsibilities were that of the Bar Manager.

24. On the shifts Ms. McFarland listed herself as a bartender on the schedule, Ms. 

McFarland would rarely bartend for any significant portion of her shift. 

25. Despite being a member of management, Ms. McFarland still takes 50% of the tips.

26. On or about October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Riegel complaint to Defendants about the 

“forced tip pool” and complained that it is unlawful for Ms. McFarland, as a manager, to take tips 

from the bartenders. Plaintiff Riegel also stated that Ms. McFarland has admitted to her that the 

practice was unlawful.

27. After Plaintiff Riegel made complaints about the unlawful tip pool structure, her 

hours and shifts were drastically reduced.

28. From time to time, Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Both Plaintiffs)

FLSA – Invalid Tip Pool; Unlawful Retention of Tips; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

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

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 4
5

30. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants within the previous three years of the filing 

of this Complaint.

31. Plaintiffs were part of a tip pool where a portion of the tips were retained by the 

employer and/or management.

32. Defendants unlawfully retained tips belonging to Plaintiffs.

33. Defendants were aware that management unlawfully retained tips belonging to 

Plaintiffs.

34. Defendants unlawfully claimed a “tip credit.” 

35. Defendants knew or should have known of the minimum wage payment requirement 

of the FLSA, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to no less than minimum wage for all hours worked.

36. Defendants’ refusal to properly compensate Plaintiffs as required by the FLSA was 

willful. 

37. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Both Plaintiffs)

OMFWSA and Ohio Constitution, Article II § 34(a) - Invalid Tip Pool; Unlawful Retention 

of Tips; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

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

39. This claim is brought under Ohio law.

40. Defendants unlawful retention of tips, unlawful claiming of a tip credit, and the 

failure to pay minimum wages are violations of Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Both Plaintiffs)

FLSA – Failure to Pay Overtime

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

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 5
6

42. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one and one-half timestheir regular rate of pay for

all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

43. Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirement of the 

FLSA, and that Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees, entitled to one and one-half timestheir regular

rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

44. Defendants’ refusal to properly compensate Plaintiffs as required by the FLSA was 

willful. 

45. By not paying Plaintiffs their overtime rate for time worked in excess of forty hours 

in a workweek, Defendants have violated the FLSA and Plaintiffs have been damaged.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Both Plaintiffs)

OMFWSA – Failure to Pay Overtime

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

47. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one and one-half time their regular hourly rates of

pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

48. By not paying Plaintiffs their overtime rate for time worked in excess of forty hours 

in a workweek, Defendants have violated the OMFWSA and Plaintiffs have been damaged.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Both Plaintiffs)

R.C. 4113.15 – Failure to Tender Pay by Regular Payday

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

50. Plaintiffs assertsthis claim under R.C. 4113.15, which requires Defendantsto pay its 

employees within thirty (30) days of when they performed compensable work.

51. At all times relevant herein, Defendants failed to make proper wage payments to 

Plaintiffs for wages, tips, and overtime.

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 6
7

52. By failing to make the wage payments within 30 days of when such payments were 

due, Defendants have violated R.C. 4113.15. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff Riegel Only)

FLSA – Retaliation

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

54. Plaintiff Riegel made complaints and opposed Defendants’ unlawful pay practices.

55. As a result of Plaintiff Riegel’s complaints and opposition, her scheduled hours and 

shifts were reduced.

56. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliation, Defendant Riegel has suffered lost 

wages and other compensation, and emotional distress.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for the following relief: 

A. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FLSA and the OMFWSA;

B. An award of monetary damages, including unlawfully retained tips, unpaid minimum 

wages, unpaid overtime wages due under the FLSA, OMFWSA, and R.C. § 4113.15;

C. An award of liquidated damages and/or treble damages as a result of Defendant's 

failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 and R.C. 

§ 4113.15;

D. An award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;

E. An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and expert fees;

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 7
8

F. Sixth Cause of Action - Plaintiff Riegel Only – An award of lost wages and other 

compensation, and an award of compensatory damages, liquidated damages and/or 

pre/post judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

G. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate, but in any 

event not less than $75,000.00.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Greg Mansell

Greg R. Mansell (0085197)

(Greg@MansellLawLLC.com)

Carrie J. Dyer (0090539)

(Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com)

Mansell Law, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, OH 43207

Ph: (614) 610-4134

Fax: (513) 826-9311

Counsel for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby requests a jury of at least eight (8) persons.

/s/Greg R. Mansell________

Greg R. Mansell (0085197)

Case: 2:17-cv-01112-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/18/17 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 8