Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Barbara Blagg

&

Lola Music,

On behalf of themselves and 

other members of the general 

public similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Fresh Thyme Farmers Market, LLC 

(Lakes Venture, LLC)

c/o Paracorp Incorporated

4568 Mayfield Road, #204

Cleveland, Ohio 44121

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Case No. 2:18-cv-458

JUDGE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

PLAINTIFFS’ COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OHIO LAW

Now comes Barbara Blagg (“Plaintiff Blagg” or “Blagg”), and Lola Music (“Plaintiff 

Music” or “Music”) (together hereinafter “Plaintiffs” or “Named Plaintiffs”), individually and on 

behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, for their complaint against Fresh 

Thyme Farmers Market, LLC (Lakes Venture, LLC) (“Fresh Thyme” or “Defendant”), for its failure to 

pay employees overtime wages seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 

4111.03 (“the Ohio Wage Act”); and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”), Ohio Rev. Code § 

4113.15 (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to collectively as “the Ohio Acts”). 

Named Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1
Page 2 of 20

while the Ohio Acts claims are asserted pursuant to Rule 23. The following allegations are based 

on personal knowledge as to the Named Plaintiffs’ own conduct and are made on information and 

belief as to the acts of others. Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated, hereby state as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, the 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 properly lies in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendant

employed Named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Southern District of Ohio, a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial 

district, and Defendant conducts substantial business in this judicial district. 

II. THE PARTIES

A. Named Plaintiff Barbara Blagg

4. Named Plaintiff Blagg is an individual and United States citizen. At all times

relevant herein, Plaintiff Blagg was employed by Defendant from approximately November, 2015

until February 26, 2018 as a receiver.

5. As a receiver, Plaintiff Blagg was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant

as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 2
Page 3 of 20

6. Plaintiff Blagg’s primary job duties consisted of checking in trucks and carrying 

loads containing merchandise from vendors, among other miscellaneous job duties, on behalf of 

Defendant during all times relevant.

7. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff Blagg was not paid for all of her

compensable hours worked due to a companywide meal period policy that resulted in the deduction 

of thirty (30) minutes per shift of five hours or more when Plaintiff Blagg did not receive a bona 

fide meal period. The companywide meal period policy resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the 

three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

B. Named Plaintiff Lola Music

8. Named Plaintiff Music is an individual, United States citizen, and former resident 

of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff 

Music was employed by Defendant from approximately November, 2015 through April, 2017 as 

an Assist Department and a Department Manager in the Food Service Department.

9. As a Department Manager, Plaintiff Music was an hourly, non-exempt employee 

of Defendant as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

10. Plaintiff Music’s primary job duties consisted of training employees, stocking 

inventory, setting up the stores at which she was assigned, sanitation, day-to-day operations in the 

Food Service Department, and assisting with other departments as needed.

11. As a Food Service Department Manager, Plaintiff Music worked at the following 

stores of Fresh Thyme:

a. Worthington, Ohio (“Worthington”)

i. 933 High St., Worthington, Ohio 43085

b. Columbus, Ohio (“Columbus”)

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 3
Page 4 of 20

i. 6670 Sawmill Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235

c. Westerville, Ohio (“Westerville”)

i. 849 Polaris Pkwy, Westerville, Ohio 43082

d. Mayfield Heights, Ohio (“Mayfield Heights”)

i. 1545 Golden Gate Plaza, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

e. North Canton, Ohio (“North Canton”)

i. 5509 Dressler Rd. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720

f. Westlake, Ohio (“Westlake”)

i. 30100 Detroit Road, Westlake, Ohio 44145

12. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff Music was not paid for all of her 

compensable hours worked due to a companywide meal period policy that resulted in the deduction 

of thirty (30) minutes per shift of five hours or more when Plaintiff Music did not receive a bona 

fide meal period. The companywide meal period policy resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the 

three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

13. In addition, Plaintiff Music regularly performed off-the-clock job duties on behalf 

of Defendant. Specifically, she was required to clock out to keep her recorded time at forty (40) 

hours per week. However, Plaintiff Music regularly performed off-the-clock job duties on behalf 

of Defendant such as working in the salad bar, cheese bar, whole food service, sandwich stations, 

the deli department, closing down, preparing items and inventory for the next day, washing dishes, 

putting away food trucks, and she also did not get paid for travel time in between the various stores 

at which she was assigned to work.

14. Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those 

similarly situated and has given their written consent to bring this action to collect unpaid overtime 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 4
Page 5 of 20

and other unpaid compensation under the FLSA. Named Plaintiffs’ consents are being filed along 

with the Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). (Consents to be Party Plaintiffs, attached hereto 

as Exhibit A).

15. Defendant Fresh Thyme is a foreign limited liability company doing substantial 

business in Franklin County, which is in the Southern District of Ohio. According to the Ohio 

Secretary of State, it designated Paracorp Incorporated as its statutory agent with the address of

4568 Mayfield Road # 204, Cleveland, Ohio 44121.

16. Defendant is a grocery store chain with at least seventy-six (76) store locations 

spanning at least eleven (11) states, including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.1

17. Defendant was and is actively doing business in this judicial district during all times 

relevant. At all times relevant, Defendant has been an “employer” as that term is defined by the 

FLSA and the Ohio Acts. 

18. During relevant times, Defendant maintained control, oversight, and direction over

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, including the promulgation and enforcement of 

policies affecting the payment of wages, including overtime compensation.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant operated/operates and controls an 

enterprise and employs employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce, or has had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials 

that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and Defendant has had an 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 per year (exclusive 

of excise taxes at the retail level).

 

1 See https://www.freshthyme.com/our-stores/ (last visited May 6, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 5
Page 6 of 20

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was fully 

aware of the fact that it was legally required to comply with the wage and overtime laws of the 

United States and of the State of Ohio as well as record keeping laws of the State of Ohio.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Interrupted Meal Breaks

21. Fresh Thyme has a companywide meal break policy that requires all hourly, nonexempt employees, including Plaintiffs, to clock out for thirty (30) minutes once the employees 

have worked five (5) hours per day (hereinafter called “Meal Deduction Policy”). Specifically, the 

policy states as follows:

“2-4. Meal and Break Period:

Employees are provided meal and break periods as required by 

applicable law. Your Manager will provide further details. For 

employees scheduled more than five (5) hours in one day, the 

Company policy requires these employees to take a 30 minute 

unpaid break. This mandatory break must be taken by the beginning 

of the fifth hour worked. Employees may receive a paid 10 minute 

break for every four (4) hours worked.”

22. During the past three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiffs and 

other similarly situated employees regularly worked over (40) hours per week.

23. During all times relevant, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were 

not paid time-and-a-half (“overtime rate”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) resulting in 

unpaid overtime wages and other wages owed because of Defendant’s companywide Meal

Deduction Policy and/or practice whereby Defendant requires hourly, non-exempt employees to 

clock out for thirty (30) minutes by the fifth hour worked. Defendant deducts this time from its 

hourly, non-exempt employees’ compensable time even though employees did/do not receive an 

uninterrupted meal period in the amount of 30 minutes each shift.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 6
Page 7 of 20

24. During the relevant time period, Defendant applied the same pay practices and 

policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs.

25. During the previous three years preceding this Complaint, Named Plaintiffs and 

other similarly situated employees were not paid for all of their compensable hours worked due to 

the aforementioned Meal Deduction Policy even though employees did not receive an 

uninterrupted meal period because they continued to perform substantial job duties on behalf of 

Defendant even though they were “clocked out” during the purported meal period.

B. Additional Off-the-Clock Work

26. Plaintiff Music is representative of those similarly situated with respect to 

allegations relating to Defendant’s Meal Deduction Policy as described above and restated as if 

fully rewritten herein. She is also representative of a subclass consisting of additional off-the-clock 

work.

27. Plaintiff Music was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant as defined in 

the FLSA and the Ohio Acts because she was paid on an hourly basis during all times relevant.

28. Further, with the exception of employees at the Store Director level and above, 

Defendant paid their employees on an hourly basis. Defendant also pays its employees on a weekly 

basis.

29. With the exception of employees at the Store Director level and above, Fresh 

Thyme hourly, non-exempt employees are only paid for hours worked during the workweek 

(“Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees”). 

30. Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees were not 

guaranteed a predetermined amount on a weekly basis. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 7
Page 8 of 20

31. Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees’ pay was 

subject to reduction because of variations in the quantity of work performed.

32. Plaintiff Music and Defendant’s other Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees 

regularly performed additional off-the-clock job duties. Specifically, Plaintiff Music and 

Defendant’s other Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees were required to clock in only for the time 

period consisting of their scheduled shifts to limit or restrict the amount of overtime worked. 

However, Plaintiff Music and Defendant’s other Hourly, Non-exempt FT Employees regularly 

performed off-the-clock job duties on behalf of Defendant outside of their scheduled shifts.

33. Defendant knew or should have been aware that Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, but willfully elected not 

to compensate them for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) during the three years preceding 

the filing of this Complaint because of the preceding policies.

34. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all hours 

worked because of the preceding policies described above resulted in unpaid wages, including 

overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

IV.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.

35. Named Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of themselves and all other Similarly Situated Persons (“SSPs”) of 

the opt-in class, consisting of:

All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant 

who worked over 40 hours in any workweek and were not fully 

compensated for all hours worked because they were unable to take 

an uninterrupted meal break of thirty (30) minutes or otherwise 

performed off-the-clock job duties outside of their scheduled shifts

for the period beginning three years immediately preceding the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 8
Page 9 of 20

filing of this Complaint (the “§216(b) Class” or the “§216(b) 

Collective Members”).

36. 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 Named Plaintiffs, numerous 

putative §216(b) Collective Class Members have been denied proper overtime wages due to 

Defendant’s company-wide payroll policies and practices. Named Plaintiffs are representative of 

those other similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of her interests as well as their 

own in bringing this action.

37. The §216(b) Class can be broken down into two subclasses: (1) those §216(b) 

Collective Members who have unpaid overtime as a result of the Meal Deduction Policy

(hereinafter the “§216(b) Interrupted Meal Deduction Subclass”); and (2) those §216(b) Collective 

Members who have unpaid overtime as a result of performing off-the-clock work outside of their 

scheduled shifts (hereinafter the “§216(b) Additional Off-the-Clock Subclass”).

38. These FLSA claims are 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 Named Plaintiffs, 

numerous putative §216(b) Collective Class Members have been denied proper overtime wages 

due to Defendant’s companywide payroll policies and practices. Named Plaintiffs are 

representative of themselves and those other similarly situated employees with respect to the 

§216(b) Interrupted FLSA Meal Deduction Subclass. Named Plaintiff Music is representative of 

herself and those other similarly situated employees with respect to the §216(b) Additional Offthe-Clock Subclass.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 9
Page 10 of 20

39. The identity of the putative §216(b) Collective Class Members are known to 

Defendant and are readily identifiable through Defendant’s 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 wages, liquidated damages, 

attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.

40. The net effect of Defendant’s policies and practices is that Defendant willfully 

failed to pay overtime wages and maintain proper recordkeeping. Thus, Defendant enjoyed 

substantial ill-gained profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class 

Members.

B. Fed.R.Civ. P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.

41. Named Plaintiffs bring their Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as 

a class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated of the following class, 

consisting of:

All current and former hourly, non-exempt Ohio employees of 

Defendant who worked over 40 hours in any workweek and were 

not fully compensated for all hours worked because they were 

unable to take an uninterrupted meal break of thirty (30) minutes or 

otherwise performed off-the-clock job duties outside of their 

scheduled shifts for the period beginning three years immediately 

preceding the filing of this Complaint (the “Ohio Rule 23 Class” or 

the “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).

42. During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members 

worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not paid overtime for all hours worked 

because of Defendant’s companywide policy and/or practice of not fully compensating its 

employees for off-the-clock job duties performed on behalf of Defendant the subclasses of which 

are divided into two main subclasses.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 10
Page 11 of 20

43. The Ohio Rule 23 Class can be broken down into two subclasses: (1) those Ohio 

Rule 23 Class Members who have unpaid overtime as a result of the Meal Deduction Policy 

(hereinafter the “Ohio Rule 23 Interrupted Meal Deduction Subclass”); and (2) those Ohio Rule 

23 Class Members who have unpaid overtime as a result of performing off-the-clock work outside 

of their scheduled shifts (hereinafter the “Ohio Rule 23 Additional Off-the-Clock Subclass”).

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

members is impracticable.

45. Named Plaintiffs are members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and their claims for unpaid 

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

46. Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and 

the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.

47. Named Plaintiffs have no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those 

interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent.

48. Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel 

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

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

50. 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 Defendant with respect to its non-exempt employees.

51. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant acted 

or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making appropriate 

declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a 

whole.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 11
Page 12 of 20

52. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of 

law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual 

members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available 

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.

53. Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but 

are not limited to: (a) whether Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio 

Rule 23 Class Members overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week as a result 

of Defendant’s companywide Meal Deduction Policy and the additional uncompensated off-theclock work; (b) whether Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; 

(c) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld overtime compensation is due to the Named Plaintiffs

and other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on account of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio 

Wage Act; and (d) what amount of prejudgment interest is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class members on 

the overtime or other compensation which was withheld or not paid to them.

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

of Named Plaintiffs’ and the Ohio Rule 23 Class’ claims and will prevent undue financial, 

administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiffs and counsel 

are not aware of any pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio 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 Defendant 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.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 12
Page 13 of 20

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

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

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

of themselves and the §216(b) Class.

57. During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant employed 

the Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members.

58. Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members were paid on an hourly basis.

59. Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members primarily performed nonexempt job duties.

60. Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members worked in excess of 40 hours 

in a workweek.

61. The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked 

in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).

62. The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation for 

hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

63. Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Members were not exempt from receiving 

FLSA overtime benefits because, inter alia, they were not “executive,” “administrative,” or 

“professional” employees, as those terms are defined under the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et 

seq.

64. Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Members were not exempt from receiving 

FLSA overtime benefits because, inter alia, they were not a “learned professional” employee, as 

that term is defined under the FLSA. See 29 CFR § 541.301.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 13
Page 14 of 20

65. Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Members worked in excess of forty 

hours per week during the three years preceding the filing date of this lawsuit.

66. Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members should have been paid 

the overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.

67. Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) 

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

regular rates of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because of the Meal 

Deduction Policy and/or because Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members performed 

off-the-clock work outside of their scheduled shifts.

68. Accordingly, Defendant knew or should have known of the overtime payment 

requirements of the FLSA. Despite such knowledge, Defendant willfully withheld and failed to 

pay the overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members 

are entitled.

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

Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Collective Members is unknown at this time, 

as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession of 

Defendant or were not kept by Defendant.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Named Plaintiffs have

suffered and continue to suffer damages in an amount not presently ascertainable. In addition, 

Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, 

as result of Defendant’s willful failure and refusal to pay overtime wages.

COUNT II

(R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 14
Page 15 of 20

72. This claim is brought under Ohio Law, which incorporates the FLSA without 

limitation. 

73. 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 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).

74. The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked in excess of 

the maximum weekly hours permitted under R.C. § 4111.03, but were not paid one and one-half 

times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek due to Defendant’s 

Meal Deduction Policy and/or because Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members 

performed off-the-clock work outside of their scheduled shifts.

75. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class 

Members regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

76. Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were not exempt from the 

wage protections of Ohio Law.

77. Defendant’s repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named 

Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such, 

Defendant acted willfully. 

78. For Defendant’s violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiffs and 

the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 15
Page 16 of 20

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

Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs is unknown at this time, as many of the records necessary to 

make such precise calculations are in the possession of Defendant or were not kept by Defendant.

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Named Plaintiffs and the 

Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages in an amount not 

presently ascertainable. In addition, Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members seek 

liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, as result of 

Defendant’s willful failure and refusal to pay overtime wages in violations of R.C. § 4111.03. 

COUNT III

(O.R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF OHIO'S PROMPT 

PAY ACT)

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

82. Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by 

Defendant.

83. During relevant times, Defendant was and still is an entity covered by the OPPA 

and the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant 

within the meaning of the OPPA.

84. The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio 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 her during the last 

half of the preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 16
Page 17 of 20

85. During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio 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 O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).

86. The Named Plaintiffs’ and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain 

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

87. Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and 

continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.

88. In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis and 

with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

COUNT IV

(RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT)

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

90. The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or 

other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total 

hours worked each workweek. See R.C. § 4111.08 and Ohio Rev. Code §§4111.14(G) & (H). 

See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.

91. During times material to this lawsuit, Defendant was a covered employer, required 

to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.

92. Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees 

entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.

93. During times material to this lawsuit, Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act with 

respect to Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members by failing to properly maintain 

accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked each 

workday and within each workweek.

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 17
Page 18 of 20

94. In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendant acted willfully and with reckless 

disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as to Count I, Named Plaintiffs and other members of the § 216(b) 

Collective Class pray for an Order as follows:

A. Certifying the proposed FLSA collective action, including both subclasses;

B. Directing prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to the 216(b) 

Collective 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. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s recordkeeping policies and practices 

alleged herein violate the federal recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2, et 

seq., and that Named Plaintiffs, the 216(b) Collective Class Members are entitled to prove their 

hours worked with reasonable estimates;

D. Judgment against Defendant for damages for all unpaid overtime compensation 

owed to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class during the applicable statutory period 

under the FLSA 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 516 et seq.;

E. Judgment against Defendant for liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 516 et seq., in an amount equal to 

all unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and all other similarly 

situated employees during the applicable statutory period;

F. Directing Defendant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs connected with 

this action;

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 18
Page 19 of 20

G. Leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or 

any other method approved by the Court;

H. Judgment for any and all civil penalties to which Plaintiffs and all other similarly 

situated employees may be entitled; and

I. Such other and further relief as to this Court may deem necessary, just or proper.

WHEREFORE, as to Counts II, III, and IV, Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 

Class Members request judgment against Defendant for violations of the Ohio Wage Law and the 

OPPA for an Order:

J. Awarding to the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class members unpaid 

compensation, including overtime wages as to be determined at trial together with any liquidated 

damages allowed by Ohio law;

K. Awarding Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class members costs and 

disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees of counsel and experts, and reimbursement of 

expenses;

L. Awarding judgment against Defendant for liquidated damages pursuant to the 

OPPA in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of all unpaid overtime compensation owed to the 

Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members during the applicable statutory period;

M. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ recordkeeping policies and practices 

alleged herein violate the federal recordkeeping requirements pursuant to the Ohio Acts and that

Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members are entitled to prove their hours worked with 

reasonable estimates;

N. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in present, ongoing and 

future violations of the Ohio Acts;

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 19
Page 20 of 20

O. Directing Defendant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs connected with 

this action; 

P. Judgment for any and all civil penalties to which Plaintiffs and all other similarly 

situated employees may be entitled; and

Q. Such other and further relief as to this Court may deem necessary, just or proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman_______

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586) 

Coffman Legal, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Telephone: (614) 949-1181

Facsimile: (614) 386-9964

Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

/s/ Daniel I. Bryant___________

Daniel I. Bryant (0090859)

BRYANT LEGAL, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Telephone: (614) 704-0546

Facsimile: (614) 573-9826

Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and those 

similarly situated

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial of eight (8) persons to hear all issues so triable.

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)

Case: 2:18-cv-00458-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/09/18 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 20