Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Arshad Al-Sabur,

On behalf of himself and those 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

c/o CT Corporation System

4400 Easton Commons Way Suite 125

Columbus, Ohio 43219

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Case No. 2:18-cv-957

Judge

Magistrate Judge

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OHIO LAW

Now comes Plaintiff Arshad Al-Sabur (“Named Plaintiff” or “Al-Sabur”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly 

situated, for his Complaint against ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc (“Defendant” or “Alliance 

Data”) for its joint 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, and 4111.08 (“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 Plaintiff’s FLSA claims are asserted as a collective 

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), while the Ohio Acts claims are asserted as a class action 

under Rule 23. The following collective and class action allegations are based on personal 

knowledge as to the Named Plaintiff’s own conduct and are made on information and belief as to 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
Page 2 of 17

the acts of others. Named Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, hereby 

states as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for violations 

of the FLSA. 

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 (the Ohio Acts) 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, as a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, and 

Defendant has its principal place of business or it otherwise conducted substantial business in the

Southern District of Ohio. 

II. PARTIES 

4. Named Plaintiff is an individual, United States citizen, and resident of this judicial 

district in the State of Ohio.

5. Named Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt “employee” of Defendant as 

defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts in the positions of payment specialist, recovery specialist, 

and/or bill collector beginning in or around July 2015 through August 2017.

6. During his employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff was not fully and properly 

paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA for all of his compensable hours 

worked because Defendant did not properly calculate overtime based on his regular rate of pay,

as defined by the FLSA, but instead calculated overtime based on his hourly rate of pay, resulting 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
Page 3 of 17

in unpaid overtime wages for the three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and 

continuing until trial (three years preceding this filing date hereinafter “Relevant Time Period”).

7. Named Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of those 

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

compensation under the FLSA. 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).

8. Defendant is a foreign for-profit corporation authorized to do business in Ohio that

conducts business in this judicial district.

9. Defendant is and has been doing business in this judicial district. 

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

the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

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

Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, including the promulgation and 

enforcement of policies affecting the payment of wages and overtime.

12. During relevant times, Defendant has benefitted from the work performed by 

Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant operated/operate 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).

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
Page 4 of 17

14. 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.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

16. During his employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all of their compensable hours worked 

because Defendant did not properly calculate their regular rate of pay for the purposes of meeting 

the minimum requirements set forth in the FLSA, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.

17. Defendant pays Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees an hourly 

wage for hours worked (hereinafter “Base Hourly Wage”).

18. In addition to the Base Hourly Wage, Defendant pays their employees with 

additional forms of remuneration which should have been included in the calculation of 

employees’ regular rate of pay for overtime compensation, including shift differentials for working 

certain hours and monthly nondiscretionary bonus payments or “Performance Incentives” 

(hereinafter shift differentials and Performance Incentives will be referred to as “Additional 

Remuneration”). See 29 C.F.R §§ 778.207(b); 778.211(c).

19. During the last three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Named Plaintiff

and other similarly situated employees regularly received their Base Hourly Wage and Additional 

Remuneration as described above in various workweeks.

20. When Defendant paid Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees both 

their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendant failed to properly calculate their 

employees’ regular rate of pay for the purposes of overtime pay because Defendant did not include 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
Page 5 of 17

the Additional Remuneration in its regular rate calculations. Consequently, Defendant failed to 

properly compensate Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the overtime wages 

they were due in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA.

21. Instead, Defendant paid Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees 

overtime compensation at one and one-half times their Base Hourly Wage, and not one and onehalf times their regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 

207(e).

22. 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 payment laws 

of the United States and of the State of Ohio.

23. During relevant times, Defendant had knowledge of and acted willfully regarding 

its conduct described herein.

24. Defendant is in possession and control of necessary documents and information

from which Named Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.

25. For the three years preceding this filing, Defendant applied the same pay practices 

and policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Named Plaintiff.

26. Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been fully and 

lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned 

policies and practices of not paying employees the correct overtime rate for all hours worked over 

40 in a workweek.

27. Defendant knew or should have been aware that Named Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek and were entitled to be 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
Page 6 of 17

paid an overtime rate based on their regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the FLSA,

but it willfully elected not to fully compensate its employees during all times relevant.

IV. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

28. Named Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a 

representative action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in 

class, consisting of:

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

received a Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration during any 

workweek that they 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 (the “§216(b) Collective Class” or the 

“§216(b) Collective Class Members”).

29. 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 withheld in violation of the FLSA, liquidated 

damages, and attorneys' fees. 

30. In addition to the Named Plaintiff, the putative §216(b) Collective Class Members

have been denied overtime compensation due to Defendant’s company-wide payroll policy and 

practice of not fully and properly compensating their employees at the proper overtime rate during 

workweeks when they worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek and were paid their Base 

Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration. Defendant failed to meet the minimum requirements 

of the FLSA by not paying Named Plaintiff and the putative §216(b) Collective Class Members

overtime at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, as that phrase is 

defined under the FLSA, for all overtime hours worked. 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.

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
Page 7 of 17

31. 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 compensation, liquidated damages, 

attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.

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

failed to fully and properly pay Named Plaintiff and §216(b) Collective Class Members overtime 

wages. Thus, Defendant enjoyed substantial profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiff and 

§216(b) Collective Class Members.

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

33. Named Plaintiff brings his Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as a 

class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated of the following class, consisting 

of:

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

working in Ohio, who received a Base Hourly Wage and Additional 

Remuneration during any workweek that they 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 (the “Ohio 

Rule 23 Class”, the “Rule 23 Class”, or the “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).

34. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members 

worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of 

at least one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the 

FLSA, for all hours worked in excess of 40 because of Defendant’s policy and practice of not fully 

compensating its employees at the proper overtime rate during workweeks when they received 

additional forms of remuneration as described herein. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
Page 8 of 17

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

members is impracticable.

36. Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and his claims for unpaid 

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

37. Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and 

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

38. Named Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those 

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

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

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

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

41. 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.

42. 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 Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a 

whole.

43. 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.

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
Page 9 of 17

44. 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 their correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours 

per week as a result of Defendant’s failure to properly calculate the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ 

regular rate of pay when they received additional forms of remuneration; (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 Plaintiff 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.

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

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

administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiff 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.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
Page 10 of 17

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

of himself and the §216(b) Collective Class Members.

48. During the relevant time period preceding this Complaint, Defendant employed the 

Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members.

49. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members were paid on an hourly 

basis when working in non-exempt positions.

50. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members worked in excess of 40 

hours in numerous workweeks during their employment.

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

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

52. The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of 

their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207(a)(1).

53. Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e), “regular rate” of pay shall be broadly deemed to include 

all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee like the type of Named 

Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); see also 29 C.F.R §§ 

778.207(b); 778.208; 778.211(c).

54. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members were not exempt from 

receiving FLSA overtime compensation.

55. Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members worked in excess of 

forty hours per week during all times relevant.

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
Page 11 of 17

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

the correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek during the 

three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

57. Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) 

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

times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in workweeks because 

Defendant did not properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received Additional 

Remuneration as described herein.

58. Defendant knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of 

the FLSA. Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation to which 

Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members are entitled.

59. The exact total amount of overtime compensation that Defendant failed to pay the 

Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members is unknown at this time, as many of 

the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in Defendant’s possession.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, the Named Plaintiff and 

the §216(b) Collective 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) Collective 

Class Members.

COUNT II

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

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

62. This claim is brought under Ohio law, which incorporates the FLSA without 

limitation.

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
Page 12 of 17

63. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by 

Defendant and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio law.

64. 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).

65. The Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class worked in excess of the maximum 

weekly hours permitted under R.C. § 4111.03 but were not correctly paid their overtime rate for 

all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in workweeks that they received additional forms of 

remuneration as described herein.

66. Defendant’s company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly paying 

its hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over forty (40) 

hours in workweeks that employees also received additional forms of remuneration as described 

herein resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class.

67. Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the 

wage protections of Ohio law.

68. Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act with respect to Named Plaintiff and the 

Ohio Rule 23 Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their 

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

Defendant did not properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received Additional 

Remuneration as described herein. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
Page 13 of 17

69. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage 

protections of Ohio law. 

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

Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such, 

Defendant acted willfully.

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

those similarly situated Ohioans have suffered and continue to suffer damages; the Named Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated Ohioans seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated 

damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available.

COUNT III

(R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO 

PROMPT PAY ACT)

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

73. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have 

been employed by Defendant.

74. During relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and the 

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

the meaning of the OPPA.

75. The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class 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).

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
Page 14 of 17

76. During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid 

all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as described 

herein within thirty (30) days of performing the work. See R.C. § 4113.15(B).

77. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain 

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

78. The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and 

continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.

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

with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

pray for an Order against Defendant as follows:

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;

C. A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s payroll policy or practice of not properly 

calculating the overtime rate during workweeks its employees received Additional Remuneration

for Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class as described herein violates the FLSA;

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

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

FLSA and continuing through trial;

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
Page 15 of 17

E. Judgment against Defendant for liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA in an 

amount equal to all unpaid overtime compensation owed to Named Plaintiff and all other similarly 

situated employees during the applicable statutory period under the FLSA and continuing through 

trial;

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

this action;

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 all civil penalties to which Named Plaintiff 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 and III, Named Plaintiff requests judgment against 

Defendant for violations of the Ohio Acts, and for an Order as follows:

J. Awarding to the Named Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Named Plaintiff, the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members such other and further 

relief as the Court deems just and proper;

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
Page 16 of 17

M. 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 Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members during the applicable statutory period; and

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

future violations of the Ohio Acts.

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/ Daniel I. Bryant

Daniel I. Bryant (0090859)

BRYANT LEGAL, LLC

1457 S. High St.

Columbus, Ohio 43207

Phone: (614) 704-0546

Facsimile: (614) 573-9826

Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

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

Attorneys for Named Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
Page 17 of 17

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by a jury of twelve (12) persons.

/s/ Matthew J.P. Coffman

Matthew J.P. Coffman 

Case: 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/27/18 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17