THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MARK HOLLAR :

7254 Borror Road :

Orient, Ohio 43146 :

:

:

Plaintiff, : CASE NO. 2:18-cv-617

:

v. : JUDGE 

:

: MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CENTRAL OHIO TRAUMA SYSTEM :

1390 Dublin Road : Jury Demand Endorsed Herein

Columbus, OH 43215 :

:

and :

:

COLUMBUS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION :

1390 Dublin Road :

Columbus, OH 43215 :

c/o Agent, National Registered Agents, Inc. :

4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 :

Columbus, OH 43219 :

:

Defendants. :

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff Mark Hollar (“Plaintiff”) and proffers this Complaint for 

damages against Defendant Columbus Ohio Trauma System and Defendant Columbus 

Medical Association. (“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 (“OMFWSA”), 

O.R.C. Chapter 4111. This Court's jurisdiction in this matter is also predicated upon 28 

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1
2

U.S.C. §1367 as this Complaint raises claims pursuant to the laws of Ohio, over which 

this Court maintains supplemental subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Plaintiff entered into 

an employment relationship with Defendants in the Southern District of Ohio, Plaintiff 

performed his job duties there, and Defendants are doing and have done substantial 

business in the Southern District of Ohio.

3. Plaintiff was an “employee” as defined in Chapter 4111 of the Ohio 

Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

4. Defendants are “employers” as defined in Chapter 4111 of the Ohio 

Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Franklin County, Ohio.

6. Defendant Columbus Medical Association is a non-profit corporation 

incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio. 

7. Defendant Central Ohio Trauma System is a non-profit corporation 

incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio and is an affiliate of Defendant 

Columbus Medical Association. 

8. Defendants conduct business in the Southern District of Ohio and 

employed Plaintiff in the Southern District of Ohio. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. Plaintiff began working for Defendant Central Ohio Trauma System on or 

about December 3, 2012. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 2
3

10. Plaintiff was hired as a Disaster Operations Specialist, an hourly, nonexempt position. 

11. The bulk of Plaintiff’s job duties involved staffing the Healthcare Incident 

Liaison (“HIL”), which is a dispatch center used to alert hospitals, fire departments and 

emergency services agencies of unusual situations occurring in a fifteen (15) county 

region throughout Ohio. 

12. Plaintiff was expected to staff the HIL while at the office and while oncall, after normal working hours and on weekends. 

13. Plaintiff and two other employees were responsible for being on-call to 

staff the HIL on a 24-hour basis. 

14. The on-call shift is a thirty-day (30) continuous shift for 24 hours per day. 

15. Staffing the HIL while on-call requires a response from the on-call 

employee within 5-10 minutes if a call comes in. 

16. The on-call employee is required to have the following items fully 

accessible while on-call, at all times: laptop computer (fully charged), access to internet, 

access to Microsoft Office 365, access to Central Ohio Healthcare Disaster Information 

Management System, access to emergency alert system to send out pages, WiFi, HIL 

manual (hard copy book), HIL computer thumb drive, handheld MARCS walkie talkie 

radio and cell phone with pager application. 

17. In addition to having these items, the on-call employee must be able to 

keep all devices fully charged while on-call, to avoid an outage and to ensure he/she has 

the ability to respond. 

18. While on-call, the employee must remain in the State of Ohio. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 3
4

19. The on-call employee keeps a HIL logbook that details the date and time 

of all activities performed while on-call. 

20. Because of these restrictions, Plaintiff was unable to use on-call time for 

his own benefit. 

21. Additionally, Defendants only compensated employees for time spent 

working while on-call when the “incident” lasted longer than thirty (30) minutes. 

22. There were numerous occasions when Plaintiff was working while on-call 

and performing work for Defendant, but because the work performed was for less than 

thirty minutes at a time, he was not compensated for the time worked. 

23. “Large” incidents that took over thirty minutes to resolve were required to 

be logged and a report generated. Plaintiff only received overtime pay if the time spent 

working on the incident was longer than thirty minutes. 

24. Plaintiff was never compensated for time he spent working while on-call, 

for incidents that lasted less than 30 minutes.

25. Plaintiff was never compensated for time spent while he was remaining 

on-call, even though he was restricted from using his time for his own benefit. 

26. Plaintiff’s activities while on call were severely limited, because the large 

number of resources needed and the mandate to respond within 5-10 minutes made it 

almost impossible for him to engage in normal tasks such as going out to dinner, going to 

the grocery store, going to the gym for a workout, etc. 

27. Plaintiff was severely limited in travel and activity because he could 

never be anywhere that he did not have immediate access to Wi-Fi while on call. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 4
5

28. Plaintiff spent a significant amount of his employment with Defendant 

on-call and was not compensated for doing so. 

29. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to Sherri Kovach, Executive 

Director for Defendant Columbus Ohio Trauma System. In the letter, Plaintiff explained 

he had spoken to her previously, on several occasions, regarding the HIL on-call policy.

30. Prior to this letter, Plaintiff had several verbal conversations with Director 

Kovach about the fact that he believed the policy to be unlawful, as it did not compensate 

him for being on-call, in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law.

31. In the March 1st letter, Plaintiff reiterated that he believed the policy to be 

illegal because he was not paid for his on-call hours. 

32. Plaintiff also informed her that he was told by Jodine Keller, Associate 

Director for Defendant Columbus Ohio Trauma System, that being on-call was 

mandatory and he was not entitled to additional compensation.

33. In closing, Plaintiff asked Ms. Kovach to formally review the policy with 

a labor professional in order to get an opinion as to its legality. 

34. On or about May 11, 2017, Plaintiff was terminated from his position. 

35. Because of Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the on-call policy, Defendant 

retaliated against him and terminated his employment. 

36. Prior to his termination, Plaintiff had never been disciplined or written up. 

37. Plaintiff’s most recent performance review, issued on February 23, 2017, 

was extremely positive and contained no criticism. 

38. Accordingly, the proffered reasons for Plaintiff’s termination are untrue, 

retaliatory, and pretextual. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 5
6

COUNT I

FLSA – Unpaid Overtime

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

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

29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.

41. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed as a Disaster 

Operations Specialist, an hourly, non-exempt position. 

42. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of forty hours per week, as he was 

frequently on-call, performing work for Defendants and/or so restricted while on call that 

he could not use his time for his own benefit. 

43. Plaintiff should have been paid the overtime premium for hours worked in 

excess of forty hours per week.

44. Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment 

requirement of the FLSA.

45. During the entire duration of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants

knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages he was due.

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount not presently ascertainable. In 

addition, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other 

remedies available, as result of Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay overtime 

wages in violations of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. §§206-207).

COUNT II

O.R.C. 4111.03 – Unpaid Overtime

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 6
7

48. This claim is brought under Ohio Law.

49. Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to 

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

50. For the Defendants’ violations of O.R.C. 4111.03, Plaintiff is entitled to 

recover unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available under 

Ohio Law.

COUNT III

FLSA Retaliation

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

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

29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

51. Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when he informed Defendants they 

had misclassified him and failed to pay him the required overtime premium as required by 

law.

52. Defendants knew that Plaintiff engaged in such protected activity.

53. Shortly after Plaintiff engaged in such protected activity, Defendants 

terminated Plaintiff. 

54. Because Plaintiff engaged in the aforementioned protected activity, 

Defendants took an adverse employment action by terminating Plaintiff’s employment and 

denying him the salary, benefits, and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment 

for which Defendants are liable.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful and intentional 

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

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 7
8

and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, as a result of Defendants’ retaliation in 

violation of 29 U.S.C. §215.

COUNT IV

O.R.C. 4113.15– Unpaid Wages

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

57. Defendants violated Ohio’s Prompt Pay Statute by failing to pay 

Plaintiff’s wages.

58. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the hours he spent working while oncall, but performing tasks that took less than thirty (30) minutes, nor was he compensated 

for time spent while on-call but so restricted that he could not use his time to his own 

benefit. 

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has 

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

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

remedies available, as result of Defendants’ conduct.

COUNT V

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

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

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

Act.

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

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

Constitution.

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 8
9

63. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants but was not paid for all work he 

performed while employed by Defendant, as he performed work while on-call and was 

not paid if the work was less than thirty minutes per “incident” and was not paid for time 

spent on-call when he was too restricted to use his time for his own benefit. 

64. Defendants’ knowing failure to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff was, and 

continues to be, a violation of the OMFWSA.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has 

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

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

Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay minimum wage.

COUNT VI

FLSA – Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

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

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

29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.

68. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a 

non-exempt, hourly employee. 

69. Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for hours worked while on-call, when 

the “incident” was less than 30 minutes in length and refused to pay Plaintiff for time 

spent on-call when he was too restricted to use his time for his own benefit. 

70. Defendants were or should have been aware that it failed to pay Plaintiff 

minimum wage for each hour worked.

71. The Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay minimum wage to 

Plaintiff was a violation of the FLSA.

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 9
10

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has 

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

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

remedies available, as a result of Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay minimum 

wage. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:

For all Counts, monetary damages including back pay and benefits, 

statutory liquidated damages, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees and costs, and front 

pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, 

but in any event not less than $150,000.00 and any and all other relief, which the Court 

deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.

Rachel A. Sabo (0089226)

Peter G. Friedmann (0089293)

(Rachel@TheFriedmannFirm.com)

(Pete@TheFriedmannFirm.com)

The Friedmann Firm LLC

1457 S. High Street

Columbus, Ohio 43207

(614) 610-9757: Phone

(614) 737-9812: Fax 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby requests a jury of at least eight (8) persons.

/s/ Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.

Rachel A. Sabo (0089226)

Case: 2:18-cv-00617-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/25/18 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 10