IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION 

BRANT TACKETT :

102 Township Road 1276 : Case No. 1:18-cv-229

South Point, OH 45680 :

: Judge:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : Jury Demand Endorsed Herein

:

ARMSTRONG UTILITIES, INC :

C/O Corporation Service Company :

50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330 :

Columbus, Ohio 43215 :

:

Defendant. :

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Brant Tackett (“Plaintiff”), and proffers this Complaint 

for damages against Defendant, Armstrong Utilities, Inc. (“Defendant”). 

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 Revised Code.

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 Plaintiff’s claims arising under the 

laws of the United States and over actions to secure equitable and other relief. 

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

Plaintiff entered into an employment relationship with Defendant in the Southern District 

of Ohio in Lawrence County, Ohio and performed his job duties there and Defendant is 

doing and has done substantial business in the Southern District of Ohio.

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1
2

THE PARTIES 

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

of Ohio. Plaintiff resides in Lawrence County, Ohio.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a foreign corporation doing 

business in the Southern District of Ohio. 

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”)

6. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.

7. Defendant is an eligible employer, as defined by the FLSA. 

8. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly employee 

and entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. 

9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in commerce or in the 

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

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

10. Plaintiff began working for Defendant approximately in August of 2009, as 

a Premise Technician, at Armstrong, located at 9651 County Road 1, South Point, Ohio 

45680.

11. Plaintiff’s job duties included, but were not limited to, installing cable, 

internet, and television into customer’s residences.

12. Based on his job duties, Plaintiff does not fall within an exemption to the 

FLSA. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours 

per week and minimum wage for all hours worked under 40 hours per week.

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 2
3

13. Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis and was making approximately $22.18 

per hour at the time of his termination. 

14. Plaintiff’s normal work schedule was from 8:00 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on 

Monday through Friday.

15. Plaintiff would arrive at 7:30 a.m. prior to his shift to perform work related 

tasks such as return equipment collected from the previous workday, obtain new equipment 

to install, resupply his work van with necessary supplies, and review the jobs he was 

assigned to receive.

16. Plaintiff had to perform this work prior to the shift because by the time he 

returned to Defendant’s premises at the end of his shift, he was unable to return equipment 

and obtain new equipment because the employees who issued such equipment had already 

left for the day.

17. If Plaintiff did not do this work prior to his shift, he would have been 

consistently late to his scheduled appointments during the work day, as this work must be 

done prior to beginning his shift. Plaintiff needed these items to perform his scheduled 

jobs for each day. 

18. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was told not to clock in from 7:30 

a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

19. Plaintiff continued to perform such work consistently from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 

a.m. each shift during the entirety of his employment and was never instructed to stop 

working during such time. Plaintiff had to do so in order to be ready for his scheduled shift. 

If he did not do so, he would have been disciplined for being late to his daily scheduled 

appointments.

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 3
4

20. Defendant knew Plaintiff was performing such work but did not pay him 

for his time. 

21. Defendant made no attempts to prevent Plaintiff from performing such 

work.

22. On all occasions, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff minimum and overtime 

wages for the work that Plaintiff performed from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

23. To track its employee’s time, Defendant required Plaintiff, as well as all of

its premise technicians, to use a time keeping application through their cell phones to clock

in and out.

24. Employees were permitted to take a thirty-minute lunch to eat each day. 

Defendant required employees to clock out for their lunch and clock in upon completion 

of their lunch. 

25. When the employees did clock out, the time keeping application would 

automatically deduct thirty minutes of time worked from those employees’ reported work

time for that day, regardless of the time the employee actually spent eating lunch.

26. When the employee timed back in, the application would only being 

tracking time after the full completion of the thirty minutes that was automatically 

deducted—regardless if the employee began work prior to the thirty minutes being 

complete.

27. Plaintiff, along with other Defendant employees, often would begin work 

prior to the completion of the full thirty-minute time deduction.

28. Plaintiff would typically eat a quick lunch, in between jobs, while he was 

on the road. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 4
5

29. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff, along with other Defendant 

employees, made complaints to Defendant regarding the fact that the time keeping system 

automatically deducted thirty-minute lunches, regardless of the actual time the employee 

spent eating lunch. 

30. Though Plaintiff was trained on how to edit his time keeping, Plaintiff was 

unaware that he was permitted to make edits to the time-keeping system during the lunch 

hour. 

31. Despite employee complaints regarding the auto-deduct lunch policy, 

Defendant failed to take any corrective action.

32. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for minimum and overtime 

wages for the entirety of work that Plaintiff performed.

33. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff was terminated.

34. When Plaintiff received his pay check for the pay period ending on 

September 23, 2017, Defendant had deducted 37 hours of pay without Plaintiff’s written 

or oral permission.

35. Plaintiff never received pay for the eight hours worked during the pay

period of October 7, 2017.

COUNT I

(FLSA: 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Failure to Pay Overtime)

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

37. This claim is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)

29 U.S.C. § 207, and § 216(b). 

38. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and one-half 

times his regular rate at which he was employed for all time worked in excess of forty hours 

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 5
6

per workweek as a result of failing to account for the time Plaintiff worked during the thirty 

minute automatic time deduction, as a result of failing to account for the time that Plaintiff 

worked pre-shift, and as a result of failing to pay for work performed during Plaintiff’s

final two pay periods.

39. Plaintiff’s job duties, as described above and incorporated herein, did not 

qualify him for any exemption under the FLSA.

40. Plaintiff frequently worked more than 40 hours per workweek. 

41. Defendant knew or should have known it was required to pay Plaintiff timeand-a-half for these additional hours, and failed to do so.

42. Defendant knowingly violated 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. by failing to pay 

Plaintiff for the time he worked prior to his shifts, for the work Plaintiff performed during 

the thirty-minute automatic time deduction, and for the time that he worked on Plaintiff’s

final two pay periods.

43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful and intentional 

conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount not presently 

ascertainable. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest 

and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available under 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.

COUNT II

(O.R.C. § 4111 et seq. – Failure to Pay Overtime) 

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

45. This claim is brought pursuant to Ohio Law.

46. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, overtime wages 

for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. 

47. Defendant’s repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to 

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 6
7

Plaintiff was, and continues to be, a violation of Chapter 4111 of the Ohio Revised Code.

48. For Defendant’s violations of O.R.C. 4111, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

unpaid wages, statutory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available 

under Ohio law.

COUNT III

O.R.C. § 4113.15– Unpaid Wages

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

35. Defendant violated Ohio’s Prompt Pay Statute by failing to pay Plaintiff’s 

wages.

36. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for the hours Plaintiff worked during the 

entirety of his employment with Defendant for the pre-shift work Plaintiff performed, for 

the work Plaintiff performed during the thirty-minute deduction from the time application, 

and for the work Plaintiff performed during Plaintiff’s final two pay periods.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer damages not presently ascertainable. In addition, Plaintiff 

seeks liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other remedies 

available, as result of Defendant’s conduct.

COUNT IV

O.R.C. § 4111.02 OMFWSA- Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

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

39. This claim is brought pursuant to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards 

Act.

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 7
8

40. Section 4111.02 of the Ohio Revised Code requires an employer to pay its 

employees at a wage rate not less than the minimum wage rate set forth in the Ohio 

Constitution.

49. Plaintiff performed work for Defendant but was not paid for all work he

performed while employed by Defendant, as a result of Defendant failing to account for 

the time Plaintiff worked during the thirty minute automatic time deduction, as a result of 

Defendant failing to account for the time that Plaintiff worked pre-shift, and as a result of 

Defendant failing to pay for work performed during Plaintiff’s final two pay periods.

41. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff for such time worked resulted in 

Defendant failing to pay Plaintiff minimum wage. 

42. The Defendant’s knowing failure to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff was, 

and continues to be, a violation of the OMFWSA.

43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer damages. In addition, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, 

interest and attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other remedies available, as result of Defendant’s 

willful failure and refusal to pay minimum wage.

COUNT V

FLSA – Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

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

45. This claim is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 

29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.

46. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly employee. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 8
9

47. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for hours he worked during the entirety 

of his employment with Defendant for the pre-shift work Plaintiff performed, for the work 

Plaintiff performed during the thirty-minute automatic deduction of the time application, 

and for the work Plaintiff performed during Plaintiff’s final two pay periods.

48. Defendant was or should have been aware that it failed to pay Plaintiff 

minimum wage for each hour worked.

49. The Defendant’s repeated and knowing failure to pay minimum wage to 

Plaintiff was a violation of the FLSA.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer damages not presently ascertainable. In addition, Plaintiff 

seeks liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other remedies 

available, as a result of Defendant’s willful failure and refusal to pay minimum wage. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests damages in an amount not less than $75,000.00. 

Plaintiff is entitled to damages of unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, punitive damages,

interest, costs of the litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other or additional relief 

deemed appropriate by the Court. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.

Rachel A. Sabo (0089226)

(Rachel@TheFriedmannFirm.com

Peter G. Friedmann (0089293)

(Pete@thefriedmannfirm.com)

The Friedmann Firm LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, OH 43207

Telephone: (614) 610-9757

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 9
10

/s/ Adam L. Slone, Esq. 

Adam L. Slone (0093440)

Slone@Saadlawoffice.com

250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Rd., Suite 270

Worthington, Ohio 43085

Telephone: (614) 987-7840

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial by the maximum persons permitted by law 

on all issues herein triable to a jury. 

/s/ Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.

Rachel A. Sabo (0089226)

Case: 1:18-cv-00229-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/03/18 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 10