IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DONNA S. TODD :

3587 Hoover Rd. :

Grove City, OH 43123 :

: Case No.: 2:18-cv-20

Plaintiff, :

: JUDGE

vs. :

: MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUNRISE FAMILY HEALTHCARE, :

LLC, :

Serve Statutory Agent: :

Ahmet H. Ali :

132 North Wilson Road : Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon

Columbus, OH 43204 :

:

and :

:

AHMET H. ALI, :

132 North Wilson Road :

Columbus, OH 43204 :

:

Defendants. :

COMPLAINT

NOW COME Plaintiff Donna S. Todd (“Plaintiff”) proffering this Complaint for damages 

against Defendant Sunrise Family Healthcare, LLC and Defendant Ahmet H. Ali (“Defendants”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

(“Chapter 4111”).

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

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

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 1
2

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

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

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

entered into an employment relationship with Defendant in the Southern District of Ohio and 

performed their job duties there, and Defendant is doing and has done substantial business in the 

Southern District of Ohio.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Donna Todd is an individual, a United States citizen, and a resident of the 

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

6. At all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants as that 

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

7. Defendant Sunrise Family Healthcare, LLC is a Limited Liability Company

registered to do business in Ohio and conducts business in the Southern District of Ohio.

8. Defendant Ahmet H. Ali is an individual and owner of Defendant Sunrise Family 

Healthcare, LLC. Defendant Ali controls the pay practices of Sunrise Family Healthcare, LLC.

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

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

10. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce, and/or the business activities of Defendants’ constituted an 

enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA.

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2
3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 A. Defendants’ Employment Practices

11. Defendants are in the business of providing home healthcare services throughout 

Central Ohio. Defendants provide healthcare services in hospitals, nursing homes, residential 

facilities and in patient’s homes. 

12. Defendants maintain a principle office in Franklin County, Ohio.

13. At any given time, Defendants employed between 9 and 13 office staff employees.

14. In addition to office staff members, Defendants employ approximately 200 or more

Home Health Aides at any given time.

15. Defendants pay their office staff members and Home Health Aides on an hourly 

basis.

16. Defendants’ pay periods are based on a two-week period of time.

17. Defendants require their office staff members and Home Health Aides to “clock in” 

and “clock out” during their shifts to keep track of their time worked. 

18. Office staff members tracked their time by clocking in and out using a computer 

program called Clockspot.

19. Home Health Aides kept track of their time using paper time sheets. Their time 

sheets are submitted to Defendants’ Human Resources Manager every week.

20. In or around October 2017, Defendants began using DeVero, a home health 

software program, to track all employees’ time.

21. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have maintained a policy of not paying

overtime compensation to Home Health Aides for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 3
4

40. Instead, Defendants paid its office staff and Home Health Aides “straight time” for all hours 

worked. 

22. On many occasions, office staff and Home Health Aides received two or three

paychecks for the same pay period. One paycheck contained payment at “straight time” for 80 

hours of work performed during the two-week pay period. The other paycheck contained payment 

at the same “straight time” for any hours worked by that employee in excess of 80 during the twoweek pay period. 

23. Defendants their Scheduler, an office position, to be “on-call” at all hours of the 

day, every day. The Scheduler is required to carry a company-issued cell phone and respond to 

any calls that are received after hours, i.e., anytime between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekdays, 

and at any time on the weekends.

24. While on-call, the Scheduler receives phone calls for various reasons and must take 

several different actions, depending on the issue at hand.

25. A Scheduler often receives calls from Home Health Aides indicating that he or she 

cannot make it to his or her scheduled shift. In that case, the Scheduler reaches out to other 

available Home Health Aides and is responsible for finding an Aide to cover the shift.

26. A second reason the Scheduler may receive a call is if a “client incident” has 

occurred, e.g. a client has fallen and injured him or herself. In that case, the Scheduler reports the 

incident to Defendant Ali and writes an incident report.

27. A third reason the Scheduler could receive a call is when a client is being 

discharged. In that situation, the hospital calls the Scheduler and indicates that the client is ready 

to be released. The Scheduler then calls Defendants' on-duty nurse and informs him or her that 

the client’s case needs to be “resumed.” Once the case is resumed, the Scheduler notifies a Home 

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 4
5

Health Aide that the client is being discharged, the case has been resumed, and schedules the 

client’s care with the Home Health Aide.

28. At all relevant times herein, Defendants did not allow its Scheduler to clock-in and 

track his or her time spent on call. Schedulers were not paid for their time spent on call, even if 

they were performing work on Defendants’ behalf during this time.

B. Plaintiff Todd’s Employment

29. Plaintiff Todd began working for Defendants on or around March 3, 2016 as a 

Home Health Aide. 

30. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek as a Home Health 

Aide throughout her employment with Defendants.

31. In accordance with Defendants’ pay practices set forth above, Plaintiff did not

receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, Plaintiff received 

only “straight time” pay for each hour worked. 

32. In or around late October 2016, Defendants’ Scheduler resigned. Plaintiff Todd 

was placed in the position of Scheduler. 

33. Plaintiff began performing the duties of the Scheduler, as well as continuing to 

provide services for her clients as a Home Health Aide.

34. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week performing the duties 

associated with both of these positions.

35. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants ended on or around November 30, 2017.

36. At all times throughout her employment, Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis.

37. At all times throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to the same pay 

practices set forth above.

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 5
6

38. While Plaintiff was employed as the Scheduler, Plaintiff was assigned the 

additional responsibility of “on call” work Monday through Friday, 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 

24 hours per day on Saturdays and Sundays.

39. Plaintiff was not compensated for work performed while she was on-call.

40. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, including her on-call 

work, throughout her employment with Defendants, but was not compensated at a rate of one and 

one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40.

41. For example, during the two-week pay period of December 18, 2016 through 

December 31, 2016, Plaintiff Todd worked 72 hours in the position of Scheduler. During that 

same pay period, Plaintiff worked 44 hours as a Home Health Aide. Thus, Plaintiff worked a total 

of 117.5 hours for Defendants during that two-week pay period. 

42. Instead of paying Plaintiff the overtime compensation she was owed for each of 

those two weeks, Defendants issued Plaintiff two separate checks at the close of the pay period. 

One check compensated Plaintiff for her Scheduler hours (72 hours) at her rate of pay of $14.00 

per hour. The other check compensated Plaintiff for her Home Health Aide hours (44 hours) at a 

rate of $12.00 per hour, as well as her Escort Service hours (i.e., transporting patients to 

appointments, etc.) (1.5 hours) at a rate of $13.00 per hour. Plaintiff was not paid at a rate of one 

and one-half times her regular rate of pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 each week. See 

Exhibit A—Todd Payroll Records Ex.1, attached hereto.

43. Another example of Defendants’ unlawful pay practices is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B—Todd Payroll Records Ex.2. During the two-week pay period of April 23, 2017 

through May 6, 2017, Plaintiff Todd worked 80 hours in the position of Scheduler. During that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 6
7

same pay period, Plaintiff worked 18.5 hours as a Home Health Aide. Thus, Plaintiff worked a 

total of 98.5 hours for Defendants during that two-week pay period. 

44. For that pay period, Plaintiff received two separate checks. One check was for the 

80 hours worked as the scheduler at a rate of $14.00 per hour. The second check was for 18.5 

hours of Home Health Aide duties at a rate of $9.00 per hour. Plaintiff was not paid at a rate of 

one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 each week.

C. Related Litigation

45. On November 11, 2016, Plaintiffs Tiffany Ellis, Dana Davis, Judy Swank, Brenda 

Phillips, and JoEllen Conway, former employees of Defendants Sunrise Family Healthcare, LLC 

and Ahmet Ali, filed a collective action complaint in the Southern District of Ohio (Case No.: 

2:16-cv-01088-ALM-TPK). A copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit C (herein after 

referred to as the “Ellis litigation”).

46. The Plaintiffs, also represented by the undersigned counsel, asserted FLSA and 

Ohio law claims for failure to pay overtime compensation against Defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims 

were identical to the claims now asserted by Plaintiff Todd in the instant action. 

47. The Ellis Plaintiffs filed a pre-discovery motion for conditional class certification 

and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on 

November 28, 2016.

48. In August 2017, the parties entered into a Collective Action Settlement Agreement, 

which was approved by Judge Marbley on September 1, 2017. (A copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Approval of the Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit D)

49. For the purposes of settlement only, the parties agreed to conditional certification 

of two FLSA classes defined as: (1) All individuals who were employed by Defendants, who 

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 7
8

worked in the office and who worked more than 80 hours in a two week pay period between 

November 11, 2013 and the present (“Office Employees”); and (2) All individuals who were 

employed by Defendants as a Home Health Aide and who worked more than 80 hours in a two 

week pay period between January 1, 2015 and the present (“Home Health Aides” or “HHAs”).

50. The settlement agreement provided for notice of the lawsuit to be sent to the 

individuals whom Defendants identified as falling within either of these two class definitions, as 

well as a consent form allowing the employee to opt-in to the lawsuit if he or she so chose.

51. The settlement agreement then required Defendants to pay an agreed-upon amount 

to any qualified Office Employee or Home Health Aide who opted into the lawsuit. 

52. Defendants deliberately failed to identify Plaintiff Todd (a current employee at that 

time) as an individual who met the definition of the conditionally certified FLSA classes. 

53. Accordingly, Plaintiff Todd was not provided notice of the Ellis litigation and was 

not provided with an opportunity to opt-in to the lawsuit and receive the overtime compensation 

owed to her as part of the settlement. 

54. Plaintiff now brings the instant matter to recover the overtime compensation she is 

owed from Defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. - Failure to Pay Overtime

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

56. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants within the previous three years of the 

filing of this action.

57. Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

58. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek.

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 8
9

59. Plaintiff was not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in a 

workweek at her regular rate of pay.

60. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per 

week, but did not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times her regular 

rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

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

the FLSA, and that Plaintiff was owed overtime compensation for all hours worked per week in 

excess of 40.

62. In fact, Defendants violated Judge Marbley’s Order and deliberately failed to 

include Plaintiff in a collective action settlement to which she was entitled to participate. As part 

of the settlement, Plaintiff should have been paid at least a portion of the overtime compensation 

she is owed for all hours worked in excess of 40.

63. Defendant continued to violate the FLSA in its payment of Plaintiff Todd’s wages, 

even after the Ellis litigation had been filed.

64. Defendants’ refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff as required by the FLSA was 

willful. 

65. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

OMFWSA R.C. 4111.03 - Failure to Pay Overtime

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

67. This claim is brought under Ohio Law.

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 9
10

68. Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff for 

hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek, including work completed while “on call,”

was a violation of Section 4111.03 of the Ohio Revised Code.

69. For the Defendants’ violations of ORC 4111.03, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available under Ohio law.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST DEFENDANT SUNRISE ONLY)

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

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

71. Plaintiff asserts this claim under R.C. 4113.15, which requires Defendant Sunrise

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

72. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Sunrise failed to make proper wage 

payments to Plaintiff for all overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a 

workweek.

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

due, Defendant Sunrise has violated R.C. 4113.15. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests and prays for the following relief: 

A. An award of unpaid overtime wages due under the FLSA, OMFWSA, and R.C. 

§ 4113.15;

B. An award of liquidated damages and/or treble damages as a result of Defendants’

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

§ 4113.15;

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 10
11

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

unlawful under the FLSA and the OMFWSA;

D. An injunction against Defendants from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, 

policies, and patters set forth herein; 

E. An award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;

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

fees and expert fees;

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

 

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Greg Mansell

Greg R. Mansell (0085197)

(Greg@MansellLawLLC.com)

Carrie J. Dyer (0090539)

(Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com)

Mansell Law, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, OH 43207

Ph: (614) 610-4134

Fax: (513) 826-9311

Counsel for Plaintiff Todd

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial by the maximum persons permitted by law on all issues herein 

triable to a jury.

/s/Greg R. Mansell________

Greg R. Mansell (0085197)

Case: 2:18-cv-00020-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/18 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 11