IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Anthony Hawkins

3685 Wynds Dr. 

Columbus, Ohio 43232

Individually and on behalf of other 

members of the general public

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Extended Life Home Care, Ltd.

1350 West 5th Ave, Ste. 16

Columbus, Ohio 43212

-andJannon Lampley 

1350 West 5th Ave, Ste. 16

Columbus, Ohio 43212

-andKenneth Lampley 

1350 West 5th Ave, Ste. 16

Columbus, Ohio 43212

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-344

JUDGE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Collective and Class Action Complaint

Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Anthony Hawkins (“Plaintiff Hawkins”, “Plaintiff”, or “Named Plaintiff”), 

individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, for his 

complaint against Defendants Extended Life Home Care, Ltd. (“ELHC”), Jannon Lampley 

(“JL”) and Kenneth Lampley (“KL”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby state as follows: 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 2 of 17

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

“Ohio Wage Act”), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, R.C. § 4113.15 (“OPPA”), 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 the Named Plaintiff

entered into an employment relationship with Defendants 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 

A. Plaintiff

4. Named Plaintiff Anthony Hawkins is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident 

of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio.

5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants as defined in the 

FLSA, the Ohio Acts, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

6. Named Plaintiff Hawkins was employed by Defendants from December of 2016 until 

December of 2017. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 3 of 17

7. During his employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Hawkins worked as a 

caregiver, or home health aide for Defendants. 

8. Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and/or as exempt 

from overtime wages. 

9. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, but Plaintiff was 

not paid overtime of at least one and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.

10. The decision by Defendants not to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff was neither 

reasonable nor in good faith.

11. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a covered, non-exempt employee of Defendants 

who, pursuant to Section 7 of the FLSA, was required to receive not less than one and 

one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours.

12. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to receive not less than one and onehalf times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours. 

13. Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff overtime of at least 

one and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

workweek.

14. Plaintiff did not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA 

or the Ohio Acts.

15. Plaintiff therefore seeks to recover all unpaid overtime and other damages owed under 

the FLSA, and to recover all unpaid overtime and other damages owed under the Ohio 

Acts.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 4 of 17

B. Defendants

16. Defendant Extended Life Home Care, Ltd. (“ELHC”) is a home care staffing agency of 

direct care workers and provider of in home rehabilitation and health care services.1

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jannon Lampley (“JL”) is believed to be a cofounder2

and co-owner of ELHC. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kenneth Lampley (“KL”) is believed to be a cofounder3

and co-owner of ELHC. 

19. According to the records of the Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant JL is also the statutory 

agent of ELHC. 

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

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

21. During relevant times as ELCH’s co-owners, Defendants JL and KL had operational 

control over significant aspects of the day-to-day functions of Defendant ELCH, 

including the day-to-day functions of the Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated. 

22. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL have had the authority to hire, fire and 

discipline employees, including Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

23. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL have had the authority to set rates and 

methods of compensation of Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

24. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL have had the authority to control the work 

schedules and employment conditions of Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.

 

1 According to Defendants’ website, Defendant ELHC is a home health service provider that assists individuals and 

families with “rehabilitation and health care in the comfort and convenience of the consumers [sic] home.” See 

www.extendedlifehomecare.com/Home.html, last visited April 3, 2018. 

2 See www.extendedlifehomecare.com/Executive.html, last visited April 3, 2018.

3 See fn. 2. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 5 of 17

25. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL have had ultimate authority and control of 

employment records.

26. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL and Defendant ELHC have mutually 

benefitted from the work performed by Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

27. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL and Defendant ELHC have not acted 

entirely independently of each other and have not been completely disassociated with 

respect to Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

28. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL and Defendant ELHC shared the services 

of Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

29. During relevant times, Defendants JL and KL and Defendant ELHC acted directly or 

indirectly in the interest of each other in relation to Named Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated.

III. FACTS

30. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Hawkins worked as a home health 

aide, caregiver, or home care provider, providing companionship services, domestic 

services, home care, and other in-home services. Plaintiff Hawkins regularly worked 

more than 40 hours per week but was not paid one and one-half his regular rate for those 

hours worked over 40.

31. Plaintiff Hawkins’s position was non-exempt at all times. 

32. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Hawkins was not exempt from receiving FLSA 

overtime wage benefits because, inter alia, he was not an “executive,” “computer,” 

“administrative,” “professional,” neither learned nor creative, or “computer” employee, 

as those terms are defined under the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.0, et seq.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 6 of 17

33. At all times relevant herein and although Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff 

Hawkins as an independent contractor and/or as exempt from overtime wages, Named 

Plaintiff Hawkins was an employee of Defendants as defined in the FLSA, R.C. Chapter 

4111, OPPA, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.

34. Subject to the elimination of a previous exemption, the Named Plaintiff was an hourly, 

non-exempt employee of Defendants as defined in the FLSA, R.C. Chapter 4111 and 

Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a. 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.

35. At all times relevant here, Defendants employed Plaintiff Hawkins to this suit as a 

caregiver, or home health aide, providing companionship services, domestic services, 

home care, and other in-home services, to perform non-exempt duties for Defendants. 

36. At all times relevant here, it has been Defendants’ policy to uniformly misclassify 

Plaintiff Hawkins and other home health aides or caregivers providing companionship 

services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services, as independent 

contractors and/or as exempt from federal and state overtime provisions, and to not pay 

such providers any overtime wages due to such misclassification. 

37. The classification was improper because Plaintiff Hawkins and other home health aides 

were not in business for themselves and instead were entirely economically dependent 

upon Defendants for their work.

38. Defendants’ policy is to pay Plaintiff and other home health aides no overtime wages 

regardless of how many hours per week they worked. 

39. Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and other home health aides to work significantly 

more than forty (40) hours per week. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 7 of 17

40. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Hawkins and other home health aides 1.5 

times their regular hourly rates for these hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek. 

41. The Named Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly 

situated, and Plaintiff Hawkins has given his written consent to bring this action to collect 

unpaid overtime and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA. The Named 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).

42. At all relevant times, Defendants are and have been Plaintiff’s “employer” as that term is 

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

43. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have been 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. 

44. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employees were engaged in interstate 

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

not less than $500,000.00.

45. During relevant times, Defendants suffered and permitted the Named Plaintiff and those 

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

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

one-half times their regular rates due to their misclassification. 

46. 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 recordkeeping laws of the 

State of Ohio. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 8 of 17

47. During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully in regard to their

conduct described herein.

48. Defendants are in possession and control of necessary documents and information from 

which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages, or, in the alternative, 

Defendants otherwise failed to keep the required records.

49. By the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants have violated the FLSA by 

failing to pay its home health aides, including the Plaintiff to this suit, overtime wages 

they have earned and to which they are entitled by law by misclassifying them as 

independent contractors and/or as exempt from overtime wages when they are nonexempt. 

IV. COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

50. The Named Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of himself and all other Similarly Situated Persons 

(“SSPs”) of the opt-in class, consisting of:

All current and former employees of Defendants ELHC and JL and 

KL who have worked as home health aides, support associates, 

caregivers, or other employees who provided companionship 

services, rehabilitation services, domestic services, home care,

and/or other in-home services, and who worked over 40 hours in 

any workweek beginning three years preceding the filing date of 

this Complaint and continuing through the date of final disposition

of this case, and who were not paid time and a half for the hours 

they worked over 40 (the “216(b) Class” or the “216(b) Class 

Members”).

51. Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class include, but may not be 

limited to, home health aides, caregivers, aides, and other employees who provided 

companionship services, domestic services, rehabilitation services, home care, and other 

in-home services for Defendants.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 9 of 17

52. The 216(b) Class Members were no longer exempt from the FLSA as of January 1, 2015. 

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. 

53. 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 

Named Plaintiff, numerous putative 216(b) Class Members have been denied proper 

overtime compensation due to Defendants’ company-wide payroll policies and practices.

The Named Plaintiff is representative of those other similarly situated employees and is 

acting on behalf of their interests as well as his own in bringing this action.

54. 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. 

55. The Named Plaintiff brings his Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("the Ohio 

Wage Act") claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as a class action on behalf of himself

and all other members of the following class: 

All current and former employees of Defendants ELHC and JL and 

KL who have worked as home health aides, support associates, 

caregivers, or other employees who provided companionship 

services, rehabilitation services, domestic services, home care, 

and/or other in-home services, and who worked over 40 hours in 

any workweek beginning three years preceding the filing date of 

this Complaint and continuing through the date of final disposition

of this case, and who were not paid time and a half for the hours 

they worked over 40 (the “Rule 23 Class” or the “Rule 23 Class 

Members”).

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 10 of 17

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

impracticable.

57. The Named Plaintiff is a member of the Rule 23 Class and his claims for unpaid wages 

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

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

interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.

59. The Named Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with those 

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

60. The Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who 

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

61. Questions of law and fact are common to the Rule 23 Class. 

62. 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.

63. 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 the Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 

Class as a whole.

64. 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. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 11 of 17

65. 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 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 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. 

66. A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient adjudication of

Named Plaintiff’s claims and will prevent undue financial, administrative and procedural 

burdens on the parties and the Court. The Named 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

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 12 of 17

68. This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf of 

himself and the 216(b) Class. 

69. 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).

70. During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants jointly 

employed the Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members.

71. The Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members were uniformly misclassified by 

Defendants as independent contractors and/or exempt from federal and state overtime 

provisions and therefore were not paid any overtime wages for their work as home health 

aides. 

72. Defendants’ policy is to pay Plaintiff and other home health aides straight time pay

regardless of how many hours per week they worked. 

73. Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and other home health aides to work significantly 

more than forty (40) hours per week. 

74. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other home health aides 1.5 times their 

regular hourly rates for these hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek. 

75. The Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 

hours in workweeks. 

76. Defendants jointly violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) 

Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time and one-half times their regular 

rates for any hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.

77. The Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members were not exempt from receiving 

FLSA overtime benefits beginning January 1, 2015.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 13 of 17

78. Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of the 

FLSA. Since the January 1, 2015 exemption elimination, Defendants willfully withheld 

and failed to pay the overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) 

Class Members are entitled.

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

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

unknown at 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.

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, the Named Plaintiff and the 

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

Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and 

attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of himself and the 216(b) 

Class Members. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

R.C. 4111.03 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME

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

82. This claim is brought under Ohio Law. 

83. The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed by 

Defendants, and Defendants are each an employer covered by the overtime requirements 

under Ohio Law.

84. 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 

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 14 of 17

exemptions of section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.” See 

R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

85. While jointly employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class 

Members worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted under R.C. 

§ 4111.03 but were not paid overtime wages for this time spent working.

86. Defendants’ company-wide policy of misclassifying Plaintiffs and other home health 

aides as independent contractors and/or as exempt and paying them straight time pay

regardless of how many hours per week they worked resulted in unpaid overtime.

87. The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage protections of 

Ohio Law.

88. Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named Plaintiff 

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

to pay the overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class 

Members are entitled. 

89. For Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiff and the Rule 

23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages, the Named Plaintiff

seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and 

attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of himself and the Rule 23 

Class Members.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

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

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

91. During relevant times, the Named Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 15 of 17

92. During relevant times, Defendants were entities covered by the OPPA; and the Named 

Plaintiffs was employed by Defendants within the meaning of the OPPA.

93. The OPPA requires Defendants to pay Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members 

all wages, including unpaid overtime, 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 R.C. § 4113.15(A).

94. During relevant times, Named 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 R.C. § 4113.15(B).

95. The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members unpaid wages remain unpaid for 

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

96. In violating the OPPA, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basis and with 

reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Named Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and 

individually, 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;

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 16 of 17

D. Directing Defendants, at their own expense, to investigate and account for the number of 

hours actually worked by Named Plaintiff and the putative class and collective members 

per week, and if Defendants failed to keep accurate records in accordance with Ohio 

Law, Named Plaintiff, the 216(b) Collective Members and the Rule 23 Class Members 

are entitled to prove their hours worked with reasonable estimates;

E. Awarding to the Named 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 Named 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 Named 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 Named 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 the FLSA and Ohio Law;

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 for all damage, relief, or any other recovery 

whatsoever.

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
Collective Action and Class Complaint – Hawkins. v. Extended Life Home Care, Ltd., et al. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-344

Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC

1457 S. High St. 

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Phone: 614-949-1181

Fax: 614-386-9964

Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

/s/ Peter A. 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 Named Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

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

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

Case: 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/16/18 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17