IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANDREA KLABBATZ, : 

Individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, : 

 5852 Garden Hill Lane 

 Dublin, Ohio 43017 : Case No. 2:18-cv-242 

 

AND : Judge 

JORDAN WILLIS : Magistrate Judge 

Individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, : 

 2947 Blue Top Drive CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 Columbus, Ohio 43232 : JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

 HEREON 

AND : 

HEIDI EAGLE : 

Individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, : 

 5735 Branding Iron Court 

 Galloway, Ohio 43119 : 

AND : 

KAITLYN VORBROKER : 

Individually and on behalf of 

 all others similarly situated, : 

 76 Westview Drive 

 Johnstown, Ohio 43031 : 

 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 

v. : 

MWD CONSULTING, INC. : 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 : 

 

 Serve Also Its Registered Agent : 

 Jerry R. Hatton 

 8 Washington Street : 

 Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 1
2

AND 

 : 

OPOC.us 

 Registered Trade Name : 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 : 

 

 Serve Also Its Registered Agent : 

 Edward D.A. Sommer 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 : 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 

 : 

AND 

 : 

ACCELWELL, INC. 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 : 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 

 : 

 Serve Also Its Registered Agent 

 CT Corporation System : 

 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 

 Columbus, Ohio 43219 : 

AND : 

CENTRIC HC, INC. : 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 : 

 Serve Also Its Registered Agent : 

 CT Corporation System 

 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 : 

 Columbus, Ohio 43219 

 : 

AND 

 : 

EDWARD D.A. SOMMER, Individually

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 : 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 

 : 

AND 

 : 

TOBIAS SOMMER, Individually 

 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300 : 

 Worthington, Ohio 43085 

 : 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: 2
3

 Defendants. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND COMPENSATION 

UNDER 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq.

AND 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE CHAPTER 4111, et seq.

Now come Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and bring 

this collective and class action against Defendants MWD Consulting, Inc. (“MWD”), OPOC.us 

(“OPOC”), AccelWELL, Inc. (“AccelWELL”), Centric HC, Inc. (“Centric”), Edward D.A. 

Sommer, and Tobias Sommer (collectively “Defendants”) for monetary, declaratory, and 

injunctive relief due to its willful failure to compensate employees with proper pay in violation 

of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (”FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Ohio 

Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”), O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., the Ohio SemiMonthly Payment Act O.R.C. § 4113.15, and common law unjust enrichment by intentionally 

failing to pay full and accurate wages to employees for each hour worked in accordance with 

federal and Ohio law. In support of the claims stated above, Plaintiffs allege the following:

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29§§ 201, et seq., 

against Defendants MWD, OPOC, AccelWELL, Centric, Edward D.A. Sommer, and Tobias 

Sommer to redress Defendants’ long standing abuse of the federal minimum wage and overtime 

standards. Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA 

violations raised in this lawsuit are straightforward—Defendants misclassify certain employees 

as exempt and do not pay these employees overtime at a rate of time and one-half for each hour 

worked in excess of forty hours in a given workweek. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 3
4

2. This action is also brought under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act 

(“OMFWSA”), O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., for Defendants’ failure to pay employees overtime at 

a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee’s wage rate for hours worked in excess of 

forty hours in one workweek, and O.R.C. § 4111.08 for Defendants’ failure to keep accurate 

records. 

3. Plaintiffs are non-exempt current and former team members working for 

Defendants. During their tenure they did not receive time and one-half their regular rate of pay 

for hours worked in excess of forty in a given workweek. 

4. Defendants’ conduct violates the FLSA because of the mandate that employees, 

such as Ms. Klabbatz, Ms. Willis, Ms. Eagle, Ms. Vorbroker, and team members, be paid for all 

hours worked including but not limited to those hours worked in excess of forty hours per week 

at one and one half their regular rate of pay within a single week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), and 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ OMFWSA claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for those claims authorized under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 

4111.01, et seq.

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and S.D. Ohio 

Civ. R. 82.1(b) because the acts giving rise to the claims of the Plaintiffs occurred within this 

judicial district, and Defendants regularly conduct business in and have engaged and continue to 

engage in the wrongful conduct alleged herein and thus, are subject to personal jurisdiction 

within this judicial district. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 4
5

PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff Andrea Klabbatz is a citizen of the State of Ohio, County of Franklin 

who was employed by Defendants as a team member in Worthington, Ohio during the statutory 

period covered by this Complaint. 

9. Plaintiff Jordan Willis is a citizen of the State of Ohio, County of Franklin who 

was employed by Defendants as a team member in Worthington, Ohio during the statutory 

period covered by this Complaint. 

10. Plaintiff Heidi Eagle is a citizen of the State of Ohio, County of Franklin who was 

employed by Defendants as a team member in Worthington, Ohio during the statutory period 

covered by this Complaint. 

11. Plaintiff Kaitlyn Vorbroker is a citizen of the State of Ohio, County of Licking 

who was employed by Defendants as a team member in Worthington, Ohio during the statutory 

period covered by this Complaint. 

12. Defendant MWD Consulting, Inc., is a for profit corporation registered to do 

business in Ohio. Defendant’s principal place of business is 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 

300, Worthington, Ohio 43085. 

13. Defendant OPOC.us is a registered trade name registered to do business in Ohio. 

Defendant’s principal place of business is 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300, Worthington, 

Ohio 43085. 

14. Defendant AccelWELL, Inc. is a for profit corporation registered to do business 

in Ohio. Defendant’s principal place of business is 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300, 

Worthington, Ohio 43085. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 5
6

15. Defendant Centric HC, Inc., is a for profit corporation registered to do business in 

Ohio. Defendant’s principal place of business is 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 300, 

Worthington, Ohio 43085. 

16. Defendant Edward D.A. Sommer is an individual and authorized representative of 

OPOC.us being sued in his individual capacity. On information and belief, Mr. Sommer acted as 

an employer under the FLSA and OMFWSA, of Plaintiffs and putative Class Members. 

17. Defendant Tobias Sommer is an individual and President of MWD Consulting, 

Inc., OPOC.us, AccelWELL, Inc., and Centric HC, Inc. being sued in his individual capacity. On 

information and belief, Mr. Sommer acted as an employer under the FLSA and OMFWSA, of 

Plaintiffs and putative Class Members. 

18. Defendants are joint employers and have jointly employed employees at all times 

within the statutory period. 

19. At all relevant times, Defendants have operated as a single integrated system. 

20. Defendants operate a business enterprise that employees team members. 

21. Each of Defendants jointly and severally employ team members. 

22. Defendants are owned, operated, and managed by the same group of individuals. 

23. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendants have 

gross operating revenues or business volume in excess of $500,000. 

24. The putative Collective Action Members are all current and former employees 

who worked for Defendants as team members, excluding managers, in the following 

departments: Employer Care, Marketing, AccelWELL, Care Center, Cocierge Team, Retirement, 

and Centric; at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 6
7

date of final disposition of this action who did not receive overtime premium pay for hours 

worked in excess of forty in a given workweek from Defendants. 

25. The putative Class Action Members are all current and former team members, 

excluding managers, who work or worked for Defendants in Ohio at any time within the six 

years prior to the date of filing of this Complaint through the date of the final disposition of this 

action. 

26. Plaintiffs’ consents to participate in this lawsuit are attached as Exhibit A to this 

Complaint. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

27. Named Plaintiffs represent themselves and all similarly situated individuals, both 

current and former employees, who were not paid overtime despite working greater than forty 

hours in one workweek in a non-exempt job position that was misclassified as exempt. 

28. Plaintiffs represent all employees, excluding managers, in Employer Care, 

AccelWELL, Care Center, Concierge Team, Retirement, and Centric departments (collectively 

“team members”). 

29. Plaintiffs and team members help Defendants’ management and analysts in 

performing insurance brokerage services. 

30. Defendants seek to serve as their business client’s one point of contact for 

insurance needs. 

31. Team members help Defendants’ business serve as their client’s one point of 

contract for insurance needs. 

32. Team members answer phones, manage insurance policy and plan information, 

and help clients fill out paperwork. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 7
8

33. Team members do not research or analyze insurance / employee products that 

could help clients, and team members do not offer consulting / advising services to clients 

regarding products. 

34. Excluding managers, Defendants’ employees that work in Employer Care, 

AccelWELL, Care Center, Concierge Team, Retirement, and Centric departments (collectively 

“team members”) are similarly situated with respect to many areas of importance. 

35. Team members do not include managers or analysts. 

36. Defendants maintain policies, pay structures, and rules that apply to every team 

member. 

37. Plaintiffs and all team members are similarly situated with respect to these 

policies. 

38. Plaintiffs and all team members perform the same or similar job duties. 

39. Plaintiffs and team members’ primary job duty did not involve selling products 

for a commission. 

40. Defendants treat Plaintiffs and all team members as exempt under the FLSA. 

41. Defendants pay Plaintiffs and all team members a set salary and fail to pay 

overtime wages when team members work in excess of forty hours in a single workweek. 

42. No team members work primarily outside of the office. 

43. All team members are supervised closely by management. 

44. Plaintiffs and team members are paid a predetermined salary twice per month. 

45. Plaintiffs and team members are required to be at their desk by 7:30 AM and 

attend a daily “jump start” meeting at 7:50 AM. If anyone was late for the “jump start” meeting, 

they were considered late for the day and written up. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 8
9

46. Defendants do not keep records of all hours worked by Plaintiffs and team 

members. 

47. Defendants do not require Plaintiffs or team members to keep records of all hours 

worked. 

48. Plaintiffs and team members frequently work during lunch and other breaks. 

Taking lunch is often discouraged. 

49. Plaintiffs and all team members are told they are expected to work forty hours per 

week, but in reality they work more than forty hours. 

50. Defendants went against this initially understood expectation and required 

Plaintiffs and team members to work many more hours. 

51. Plaintiffs and team members are required to be available during off hours to their 

managers and fellow team members. 

52. When Plaintiffs and team members leave the office, they are required to have 

their cell phone and/or laptop to be on call to their managers and fellow team members. 

53. Plaintiffs and team members do not have job titles or job descriptions. 

54. Plaintiffs and team members are not responsible for and do not have discretion to 

create / implement Defendants’ strategic planning. All of Defendants’ strategic planning is 

performed by management. 

55. Plaintiffs and team members have specific instructions or prescribed procedures 

regarding the performance of job duties. 

56. Plaintiffs and team members have no authority over matters of significance that 

affect the business. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 9
10

57. Plaintiffs and team members do not use their independent judgment to perform 

research and or advise clients. 

58. Defendants’ analysts are the only employees that research and recommend 

products to customers or provide consulting services regarding customers’ systems, with respect 

to matters of significance. 

59. Plaintiffs and all team members have no purchasing authority to bind the 

company on significant purchases. 

60. Plaintiffs and team members’ job duties depend primarily on their ability to 

conform to checklists created for them by supervisors and to operate computer programs not 

requiring specialized knowledge. 

61. Plaintiffs and team members’ primary duties involve checking reports and 

tabulating data by merely following the prescribed steps set out by management. 

62. Plaintiffs and team members’ job duties involve clerical or secretarial work, data 

entry, and depended on an ability to operate specific computer software. 

63. Plaintiffs and team members have no authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or 

implement management policies or operating practices. 

64. Plaintiffs and team members do not perform any work that affects business 

operations, or any segment of business operations to a substantial degree. 

65. Plaintiffs and team members have no authority to waive or deviate from 

established policies and procedures without prior approval. 

66. Neither Plaintiffs nor team members have any discretion or ability to exercise 

independent judgment. All decisions made by Plaintiffs and team members must be approved 

and made by a manager. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 10
11

67. Plaintiffs and team members cannot hire. 

68. Plaintiffs and team members cannot fire. 

69. Plaintiffs and team members cannot adjust the pay of any employees. 

70. Plaintiffs and team members do not supervise any employees. 

71. Plaintiffs and team members work long hours, including while away from the 

office, and are paid a fixed salary that does not include overtime for hours worked in excess of 

forty in one week. 

72. Defendants know or should have known that Plaintiffs and team members 

regularly work in excess of forty hours in a single workweek. 

FLSA ALLEGATIONS 

73. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated team members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

74. The FLSA is to be construed expansively in favor of coverage, recognizing that 

broad coverage is essential to accomplish the goals of this remedial legislation, including the 

avoidance of unfair competition. 

75. The FLSA applied to Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members at all 

times that they worked for Defendants. 

76. No exemptions to the application of the FLSA apply to Plaintiffs or the putative 

Collective Action Members. 

77. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members were 

employees of Defendants pursuant to the FLSA. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 11 of 23 PAGEID #: 11
12

78. During the relevant time period, neither Plaintiffs nor any putative Collective 

Action Members received overtime compensation from Defendants. 

79. Defendants’ scheme to label Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action 

Members as exempt employees was designed to deny them their rights as employees to receive 

overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in one workweek. 

80. Defendants’ illegal scheme to label Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action 

Members as exempt was willful. 

81. Finally, federal law requires employers to make and keep accurate and detailed 

payroll data for non-exempt employees. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. § 516.2. Amongst other 

things, the regulations require employers to make and keep payroll records showing data such as 

the employee’s name, social security number, occupation, time of day and day of week which the 

workweek begins, regular hourly rate of pay for any week in which overtime pay is due, hours 

worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek, total daily or weekly straight time 

earnings, total premium pay for overtime hours, total wages paid each pay period and date of 

payment and pay period covered by the payment, and records of remedial payments. 29 C.F.R. § 

516.2(a) & (b). Employers are required to maintain the foregoing data for a minimum of three 

years. 29 C.F.R. § 516.5. Defendants have failed to accurately keep the aforementioned records. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

82. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated team members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

83. Plaintiffs bring this collective action on behalf of themselves and all other 

similarly situated team members. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 12
13

84. Plaintiffs have actual knowledge that putative Collective Action Members have 

been denied wages for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. Plaintiffs 

worked with other team members at Defendants’ location. As such, they have personal 

knowledge of the pay violations. Furthermore, other employees of Defendants have shared with 

them that they experienced similar pay violations as those described in this Complaint 

85. Plaintiffs are not exempt from the overtime requirements under the FLSA. 

86. Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members were subject to the same uniform 

operational, compensation, and timekeeping policies and practices. Defendants maintained a 

single common and unified policy that applied to all team members equally and failed to pay 

them the overtime wages they were entitled to under law. Defendants erroneously classified all 

team members as exempt under the FLSA. 

87. Defendants’ illegal pay practices and policies are identified above and generally 

include failing to pay team members fully and accurately for all hours worked including but not 

limited to those hours in excess of forty hours per week. 

88. The putative Collective Action Members are similarly situated to Plaintiffs in all 

relevant respects having performed the same work duties as Plaintiffs and being similarly 

situated with regard to Defendants’ policies and pay practices. 

89. The putative Collective Action Members regularly work or have worked in excess 

of forty hours during a workweek. 

90. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each putative Collective 

Action Member does not prevent collective treatment. 

91. The Collective Action Members are owed wages for the same reasons as 

Plaintiffs. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 13
14

92. Application of Defendants’ illegal pay practices does/did not depend on the 

personal circumstances of Plaintiffs or putative Collective Action Members. Rather, the same 

policy or practice which resulted in the non-payment of overtime wages applies to all putative 

Collective Action Members. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: 

All of Defendants’ current and former team members in the 

Employer Care, Marketing, AccelWELL, Care Center, Concierge 

Team, Retirement, and Centric departments, excluding managers, 

who are or were employed with Defendants during the three years 

before this Complaint was filed up to the present. 

93. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard for the rights of 

putative Collective Action Members carried out an illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay 

overtime compensation. 

94. Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon and of the following in 

formulating its pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, (c) Department of Labor Wage & Hour 

Opinion Letters or (d) the Code of Federal Regulations. 

95. Defendants acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiffs and putative Collective 

Action Members in accordance with the law. 

OHIO LAW ALLEGATIONS 

96. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated team members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

97. The OMFWSA, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., expressly incorporates the standards 

set forth under the FLSA. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 14
15

98. Ohio law requires employers to pay employees minimum and overtime wages at a 

rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess 

of forty hours in one workweek. O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq. 

99. Ohio law requires employers to maintain accurate pay records. O.R.C. § 4111.08. 

100. Ohio law requires employers to, on or before the first day of each month, pay all 

its employees the wages earned by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with 

the fifteenth day thereof, and shall, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, pay such 

employees the wages earned by them during the last half of the preceding calendar month. 

O.R.C. § 4113.15. 

101. Ohio common law prohibits the windfall of unjust enrichment. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

102. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated team members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

103. Plaintiffs bring their claims for relief under Ohio law on behalf of themselves and 

a Class of persons under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

defined as follows:

All of Defendants’ current and former team members in the 

Employer Care, Marketing, AccelWELL, Care Center, Concierge 

Team, Retirement, and Centric departments, excluding managers, 

who are or were employed with Defendants during the three years 

before this Complaint was filed up to the present. 

104. Numerosity (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1)). The putative Class Action Members 

are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise number of such 

persons is unknown, and the facts on which that number can be ascertained are presently within 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 15
16

the sole control of Defendant. Upon information and belief, there are over forty putative Class 

Action Members.

105. Commonality (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2)). Common questions of law and fact 

exist as to putative Class Action Members, including, but not limited to, the following: 

a. Whether Defendants misclassified team members as exempt; 

b. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages including overtime pursuant to O.R.C. 

§§ 4111.01 et seq.; 

c. Whether Defendants failed to keep records pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.08; 

d. Whether Defendants failed to timely pay Class Members in accordance with 

O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

e. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by work and services performed by 

Class Members; and 

f. The proper measure of damages sustained by the putative Class. 

106. Typicality (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3)). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of 

the putative Class Action Members. Plaintiffs, like other Class Action Members, were subjected 

to Defendants’ policy and practice of refusing to pay wages owed to its team members in 

accordance with Ohio law. 

107. Adequacy (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4)). Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the putative Class.

108. Adequacy of counsel (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). Plaintiffs have retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex class actions, the FLSA, and state labor and employment 

litigation.

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 16
17

109. Class certification of the Ohio claims is appropriate pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 

23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

putative Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Plaintiffs 

and the putative Class Action Members as a whole. 

110. Predominance and Superiority (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3)). Class certification 

of the Ohio claims is also appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law 

and fact common to the putative Class Action Members predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members of the putative Class Action, and because a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. 

Defendants’ common and uniform policies and practices unlawfully fail to compensate the 

members of the putative Class. The damages suffered by individual members of the putative 

Class are small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. 

In addition, class certification is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative 

litigation which might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ practices. 

111. Notice (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B)). Plaintiffs intend to send opt-out notice to 

all members of the putative Class to the extent provided by Rule 23. 

112. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and a class action is 

superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of the controversyparticularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual plaintiffs lack the 

financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against corporate 

defendants. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 17
18

CAUSES OF ACTION 

First Claim: Fair Labor Standards Act: Failure to Pay Full and Accurate Wages 

(On Behalf of the Collective Action Members) 

113. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Collective Action Members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

114. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates the FLSA. 

115. Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members are nonexempt employees 

entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, as defined above. See 

29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

116. Defendants were, and are, required to pay its employees, Plaintiffs and the 

putative Collective Action Members, at least the minimum wage for all hours worked under forty 

in a given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 206. 

117. Defendants were, and are, required to pay its employees, Plaintiffs and the 

putative Collective Action Members, overtime premiums in an amount of one and one half times 

their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty hours in a given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 

207. 

118. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members 

their federally mandated overtime wages for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek. 

119. Defendants’ conduct was willful and done to avoid paying overtime. 29 U.S.C. § 

255(a). Therefore, Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members are entitled to a three 

(3) year statute of limitations. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 18 of 23 PAGEID #: 18
19

120. Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members seek all damages to which 

they are entitled under the FLSA, including their back overtime wages, liquidated damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and specifically plead recovery for the three (3) 

year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit through its resolution. 

121. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Action Members 

the federally-mandated overtime compensation for non-exempt employees at the rate of time and 

one-half for each hour worked in excess of forty in one workweek. Accordingly, Defendants 

violated the FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. 

Second claim: Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act Violations- Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 

O.R.C. § 4111.01, et seq. 

(On Behalf Of the Class Action Members) 

122. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Action Members, incorporate the 

preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless inconsistent. 

123. Defendants failed to pay wages including overtime to Plaintiffs and putative Class 

Action Members. 

124. Defendants’ failure to pay proper wages to Plaintiffs and Class Action Members 

for each hour worked including but not limited to those hours worked in excess of forty hours 

per week was willful within the meaning of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and in 

reckless disregard of applicable law. 

125. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative Class Action Members, seek 

restitution in the amount of the respective unpaid overtime wages earned and due at a rate of not 

less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a given 

workweek. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 19
20

126. As a result of Defendants’ illegal actions, Plaintiffs thereon as well Class Action 

Members suffered lost wages and other losses such as incurring the costs of attorneys’ fees 

associated with this action. Thus, they seek attorneys’ fees. 

Third Claim: Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act O.R.C. § 4113.15 

(On Behalf Of the Class Action Members) 

127. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative Class Action Members, 

incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless 

inconsistent. 

128. During all times material to this complaint, Defendants were an entity covered by 

the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act, and Plaintiffs and the Class Action Members are/were 

employed by Defendants within the meaning of the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act. 

129. The Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act requires Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and 

the Class Action Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, and the pay that was 

improperly deducted, on or before the first day of each month, for wages earned by them 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). 

130. During all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiffs and the Class Action 

Members are/were not paid wages, described as overtime wages at one and one-half times their 

regular hourly rate and the pay improperly deducted, within thirty days of performing the work. 

See O.R.C. §4113.15(B). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 20
21

131. Defendants failed to timely pay Class Action Members according to O.R.C. § 

4113.15. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and Class Action Members seek wages owed and 

interest due pursuant to O.R.C. § 4113.15. 

Forth Claim: Unjust Enrichment 

(On Behalf Of the Class Action Members) 

132. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Action Members, incorporate the 

preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in this section, unless inconsistent. 

133. Plaintiffs and the Class Action Members performed work and services that 

conferred a benefit upon Defendants and were integral to the financial success of Defendants’ 

businesses. 

134. Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiffs and Class Action Members performed 

this work and of the benefit it incurred as a result. 

135. Defendants retained the benefit of the work and services of Plaintiffs and Class 

Action Members. 

136. Under the circumstances, retention of this benefit by Defendants would be unjust 

without payment to Plaintiffs and Class Action Members. 

137. Defendants were unjustly enriched and owe Plaintiffs and Class Action Members 

for the retention of the benefit resulting from their work and services including money damages. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 21
22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals are entitled to and pray for the 

following relief: 

A. Certification of this action of a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(2) 

and (3) on behalf of the Collective Action Members and appointment of 

Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the Collective Action Members; 

B. Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of Collective Action 

Members and prompt issuance of notice to all similarly-situated members of 

an opt-in class, apprising them of this action, permitting them to assert timely 

wage and hour claims in this action and appointment of Plaintiffs and their 

counsel to represent the Collective Action Members; 

C. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FLSA and OMFWSA; 

D. An award of unpaid wages due under the FLSA, the OMFWSA and O.R.C. § 

4113.15, and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

E. Interest owed in accordance with the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act 

O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

F. An award of liquidated and treble damages as a result of Defendants’ failure 

to pay minimum wages and overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 and O.R.C. 

§§ 4111.01, et seq.; 

G. An award of prejudgment and post judgment interest; 

H. An award of compensatory damages; 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 22
23

I. An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expert fees; 

J. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Steven C. Babin, Jr. 

Steven C. Babin, Jr. (0093584) 

Lance Chapin (0069473) 

 Chapin Legal Group, LLC 

 580 South High Street, Suite 330 

 Columbus, Ohio 43215 

 Telephone: 614.221.9100 

 Facsimile: 614.221.9272 

 E-mail: steven.babin@chapinlegal.com 

 lance.chapin@chapinlegal.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 Andrea Klabbatz, et al. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

 Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues. 

/s/ Steven C. Babin, Jr. 

 Steven C. Babin, Jr. (0093584) 

 Chapin Legal Group, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Andrea Klabbatz, et al.

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page: 23 of 23 PAGEID #: 23