THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JENNIFER SELDOMRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FIFTH THIRD BANK

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 

JUDGE 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Plaintiff Jennifer Seldomridge, for her Complaint against Fifth Third Bank 

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

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

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

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

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as well as a “class action” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to 

remedy violations of MCLA § 408.414a (the “Michigan Wage Act”). 

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

1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s Michigan Wage Act claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claims are so related to the FLSA claims as to form 

part of the same case or controversy.

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

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

District and Division.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1
2

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

resident of Grandville, Michigan. Plaintiff’s Consent to Join Form is attached hereto. 

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

U.S.C. § 203(e) and the Michigan Wage Act.

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

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

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

office in this District and Division. 

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

U.S.C. § 203(d) and the Michigan Wage Act.

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

29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

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

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

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

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

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

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant is a national bank.

14. Defendant operates customer service call centers. 

15. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a Service to Solutions 

employee in Defendant’s Grand Rapids, Michigan call center.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 2
3

16. Plaintiff and other similarly situated Service to Solutions employees were 

classified by Defendant as non-exempt employees.

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

more hours per workweek. 

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

19. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees answered inbound telephone calls 

from customers.

20. Defendant maintains customer service and call center locations in multiple states.

(Failure to Pay For Time Spent Starting and Logging Into Defendant’s

Computer Systems and Applications)

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

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

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

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

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

the start of their shifts so that they could take their first call at their scheduled start times.

23. Defendant failed to count this pre-shift work performed by Plaintiff and other 

similarly-situated employees as “hours worked” for purposes of computing overtime.

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

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

25. Plaintiff estimates that she spent approximately 25-30 minutes or more each week 

performing the above-described pre-shift work each day. 

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

was practically ascertainable to Defendant.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 3
4

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

Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees. The unpaid time could have been precisely 

recorded for payroll purposes simply by allowing employees to clock in before they began 

booting up Defendant’s computer systems and applications.

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

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

Defendant’s benefit. 

29. Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part of the principle 

activities performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees. Specifically, they 

cannot perform their work without booting up and starting Defendant’s computer systems and

applications.

30. Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees for booting up and logging into Defendant’s computer systems and 

applications during which they performed work that managers and/or other agents and/or 

representatives observed.

(Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)

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

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

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

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

the FLSA.

(Failure to Keep Accurate Records)

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

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 4
5

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

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

required and unpaid work before clocking in was approximately 25-30 minutes or more each 

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

computer systems were slow or not working.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

35. Plaintiff brings Count One of the action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

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

be adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

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

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

member, is composed of and defined as:

All former and current Service to Solutions employees, and those 

working in other call center positions, employed by Defendant at 

any time in the period measured from three years prior to the filing 

of this Complaint to the present.

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

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

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

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

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

well as their own, in bringing this action.

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

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

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

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 5
6

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

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

39. Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) on behalf of herself and all other members of the class (the “Ohio Class”) defined as:

All former and current Service to Solutions employees, and those 

working in other call center positions, employed by Defendant at 

any time in the period measured from three years prior to the filing 

of this Complaint to the present.

40. The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. 

Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon 

information and belief, aver that it consists of more than 40 people.

41. There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not 

limited to, the following: 

a) whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its 

call center workers for hours worked in excess of 40 each 

workweek; and

b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and 

other members of the putative class for Defendant’s violation of 

the Michigan Wage Act.

42. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class. Her interests are 

not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of the other Ohio Class members. 

The named Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action wage-and-hour 

litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this case. 

43. The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual members. The primary questions that will determine 

Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and 

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 6
7

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.

44. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. Requiring Ohio Class members to pursue their claims 

individually would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, 

attorneys’ fees, and demands on court resources. Many Ohio Class members’ claims are 

sufficiently small that they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of 

pursuing their claims individually. Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will 

enable the issues to be adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.

COUNT ONE

(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)

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

herein.

46. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 207, 29 CFR § 785.24.

47. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate 

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

207.

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

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

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

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

and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 7
8

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

pursuant to the FLSA.

COUNT TWO

(Michigan Wage Act Violations)

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

herein.

52. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the Michigan Wage 

Act.

53. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate 

of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the Michigan Wage Act.

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

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

violated the Michigan Wage Act. 

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

pursuant to the Michigan Wage Act.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 8
9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, collectively pray that 

this Honorable Court:

A. Issue an order permitting this litigation to proceed as a collective action pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and certifying the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 23(a) and (b)(3);

B. Order prompt notice, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to all class members that 

this litigation is pending and that they have the right to “opt in” to this litigation;

C. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents actual damages for unpaid overtime 

compensation;

D. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents liquidated damages equal in amount 

to the unpaid overtime compensation found due to Plaintiff and the classes;

E. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents pre- and post-judgment interest at the 

statutory rate;

F. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

disbursements; and,

G. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents further and additional relief as this 

Court deems just and proper.

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 9
10

Respectfully submitted,

Nilges Draher LLC

/s/ Hans A. Nilges

Hans A. Nilges (0076017)

Shannon M. Draher (0074304)

7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D

Massillon, OH 44646

Telephone: (330) 470-4428

Facsimile: (330) 754-1430

Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

/s/ Hans A. Nilges

Hans A. Nilges

Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 10