UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Now comes Plaintiff Robert Younge, by and through counsel, and for his Complaint 

against Defendant Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, d/b/a/, The Huntington National Bank 

(“Huntington” or “Defendant”), states and alleges the following:

1. This is a “collective action” instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s 

practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and 

other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

2. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant is 

headquartered in this District and Division and because Defendant conducts business throughout 

this District and Division.

4. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and a 

resident of Stark County. Plaintiff’s Consent to Join Form is attached hereto. 

ROBERT YOUNGE, on behalf of himself 

and others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES 

INCORPORATED, d/b/a The 

Huntington National Bank,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 

JUDGE 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

HEREON

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1
2

5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(e).

6. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was a for-profit corporation, organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, doing and conducting business throughout 

various states in the United States, including in this District and Division, and has its principle 

office in this District and Division. 

7. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d).

8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(r).

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

in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

10. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207. 

11. Written consents to join this action as to Count One, as and when executed by other 

individual plaintiffs, will be filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Defendant provides online, retail and commercial financial services in 

approximately six states.

13. Defendant operates call centers in Ohio and Michigan. 

14. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a Phone Bank Customer 

Service Associate for Defendant in Akron, Ohio.

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 2
3

15. Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as Phone Bank 

Customer Service Associates at Defendant’s call centers. 

16. Plaintiff and other similarly situated Phone Bank Customer Service Associates 

were classified by Defendants as non-exempt employees.

17. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely worked forty (40) or more 

hours per workweek. 

18. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were paid on an hourly basis. 

19. As a Phone Bank Customer Service Associate, Plaintiff’s job duties included 

receiving inbound customer calls regarding customer accounts. 

(Failure to Pay For Time Spent Starting and Logging Into 

Computer Systems, Applications, and Phone System)

20. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant to 

perform unpaid work before clocking in each day, including, but not limited to, starting, booting 

up, and logging into Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone 

systems. Booting up and logging into the computer systems and numerous software applications 

required entering unique and frequently changing passwords for each of the numerous programs.

21. By common policy and practice, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees 

were required to have their computers booted up and have several applications running before the 

start of their shifts so that they could take their first call promptly upon commencing work at their 

scheduled start times.

22. Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by Plaintiff and other 

similarly-situated employees as “hours worked.”

23. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees performed this unpaid work every 

workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time.

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 3
4

24. Plaintiff estimates that he spent approximately 10 minutes booting up, starting and 

logging into Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone systems. 

25. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees 

was practically ascertainable to Defendant.

26. There was no practical administrative difficulty of recording this unpaid work of 

Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees. It could have been precisely recorded for payroll 

purposes simply by allowing them to clock in before they began booting up Defendant’s computer 

systems, applications, and phone systems.

27. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees 

constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for 

Defendant’s benefit. 

28. Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part of other 

principle activities performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees. They cannot 

perform their work without booting up Defendant’s computer systems, applications, and phone 

systems.

29. Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarlysituated inbound call-center representatives for starting and logging into Defendant’s computer 

systems, numerous software applications, and phone systems, during which they performed work 

that managers and/or other agents and/or representatives observed.

(Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)

30. As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees not being paid for all 

hours worked, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime 

compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 4
5

31. Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of 

the FLSA.

(Failure to Keep Accurate Records)

32. Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed 

by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees before clocking in each day.

33. The amount of time Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees spent on their 

required and unpaid work before clocking in amounted to approximately 10 minutes when 

Defendant’s computer systems were working properly, or longer when Defendant’s computer 

systems were slow or not working.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

34. Plaintiff brings Count One of the action on his own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be 

adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

35. The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right 

to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff himself is a 

member, is composed of and defined as follows:

All former and current Phone Bank Customer Service Associates 

employed by Defendant between April 10, 2015 and the present.

36. Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon 

information and belief aver that it consists of more than three hundred people. 

37. This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) as to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees 

and costs under the FLSA. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are 

similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages. Plaintiff 

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 5
6

is representative of those other employees and are acting on behalf of their interests, as well as 

their own, in bringing this action.

38. These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily 

identifiable through Defendant’s business and payroll records. These individuals may readily be 

notified of this action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of 

collectively adjudicating their claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated 

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.

COUNT ONE

(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten 

herein.

40. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated 

employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, 

29 CFR § 785.24.

41. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated 

employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for 

all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207.

42. Defendant’s failure to keep records of all of the hours worked each workday and 

the total hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees violated 

the FLSA, 29 CFR 516.2(a)(7).

43. By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly 

and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.

44. As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant 

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 6
7

to the FLSA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Conditionally certify this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) and direct that Court-approved notice be issued to similarly-situated 

persons informing them of this action and enabling them to opt in; 

B. Enter judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins;

C. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins in the amount of their 

unpaid wages as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount;

D. Award Plaintiff his costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action and 

such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 

Respectfully submitted,

Nilges Draher, LLC

/s/ Shannon M. Draher

Shannon M. Draher (0074304)

Hans A. Nilges (0076017)

7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D

Massillon, OH 44646

Telephone: (330) 470-4428

Facsimile: (330) 754-1430

Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

hans@ohlaborlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all claims so triable.

/s/ Shannon M. Draher

Shannon M. Draher

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 7
8

Case: 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 8