Opinion ID: 805994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ohio Constitution and the OMFWSA

Text: The district court also correctly held that Ellington’s state-law claim fails because he is excluded from the wage and overtime protections afforded by the Ohio Constitution and the OMFWSA. Article II, section 34a of the Ohio Constitution states, in relevant part, that Ohio employers must pay their employees working in the State a specified minimum wage and provides that “[l]aws may be passed to implement [the section’s] provisions and create additional remedies, increase the minimum wage rate and extend the coverage of the section.” The OMFWSA is one such law the state legislature has passed to implement the provisions of § 34a. The OMFWSA reaffirms the minimum wage rate established in the Ohio Constitution, Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.02, and further guarantees employees overtime pay, Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.03. Like the FLSA, both § 34a and the OMFWSA limit the scope of the minimum wage and overtime provisions to individuals who qualify as “employees.” They also both expressly adopt the FLSA’s definition of “employee.” Ohio Const. Art. II, § 34a (“As used in this section . . . “employee” . . . [has] the same meaning[] as under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act . . . .”); Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.14(B) (“In accordance with Section 34a of Article II, Ohio Constitution, the term[] . . . ‘employee’ . . . [has] the same meaning[] as in the ‘Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938’ . . . . As used in division (B) of this section . . . ‘[e]mployee” means individuals employed in Ohio, but does not mean individuals who are excluded from the definition of “employee” under 29 U.S.C. 203(e) . . . .” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, this court having already determined that Ellington was not an “employee” under the FLSA, he also does not qualify as an employee subject to the benefits of § 34a and the OMFWSA. 2. The district court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and construed the facts in a light most favorable to Ellington Ellington’s second claim of error, that the district court did not construe the evidence in a light most favorable to him as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, is also unavailing. Specifically, Ellington argues (1) that the district court’s purported finding that he was both an employee of the City of East Cleveland and the No. 11-3700 Ellington v. City of E. Cleveland, et al. Page 12 City Council precludes an award of summary judgment in favor of Defendants and (2) that the district court erred in not holding that a jury could have reasonably concluded that Defendants’ assertion of the “legislative employee” exclusion as a defense to his federal and state-law claims was pretext for their actual motives for not paying him. Ellington’s first contention, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment after it purportedly found him to be jointly employed by the City of East Cleveland and the City Council, is a variation of an argument Ellington made in the lower court. That argument, made in the alternative to his primary contention that he was not a legislative employee, proceeded in two steps. First, he argued that he was a joint employee of the City Council and the City of East Cleveland because the City Council and the City were wholly distinct entities from each other. He then maintained that because he is an employee of both the City Council and the City, he was not fully excluded from FLSA coverage because the City was not a legislative branch or body. (See Pl.’s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 12.) As the district court observed, accepting this faulty reasoning “allows the exception to the employer-employee relationship to be swallowed by the general rule.” Ellington, 2011 WL 2149364, at . What Ellington perceives as a judicial finding in his favor is, in fact, the district court’s explanation of why Ellington’s joint employer argument eviserates the “legislative employee” exclusion. The district court stated: A deputy clerk of council is both an employee of a city and a legislative body, because the legislative body is technically a part of city government. Recognizing this, the FLSA “legislative employee” exception excludes an individual who is “employed by . . . [a] political subdivision of a State,” and that political subdivision is a “legislative branch or legislative body.” Id. (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(2)(c)(ii)(V)). Indeed, the existence of and the relationship between the first and third elements of the “legislative employee” exclusion—that the individual must be both “employed by a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency,” 29 U.S.C. No. 11-3700 Ellington v. City of E. Cleveland, et al. Page 13 § 203(e)(2)(C), and also be an employee of a State’s or political subdivision’s legislative body, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(2)(C)(ii)(V)—accounts for Ellington’s contention that he is employed by both the City Council and the City of East Cleveland. To conclude that Ellington, who has been found to be an employee of a legislative body, is covered by the FLSA because, as Deputy Clerk of Council, he is also part of the City of East Cleveland’s workforce would effectively excise the FLSA’s “legislative employee” exclusion. Such a conclusion is both unreasonable and not supported by the language of the exclusion. Ellington has also likely forfeited his argument that Defendants invoked the “legislative employee” exclusion as pretext for their true motive behind failing to pay him his wages because he did not raise it in the district court. See Meade v. Pension Appeals & Review Comm., 966 F.2d 190, 194 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The general rule is that the circuit court will not address issues on appeal that were not raised and ruled upon below.”). Nonetheless, the fact that Defendants may have raised the exclusion after they failed to timely pay Ellington is not relevant in this case. As is discussed in greater detail above, Ellington is excluded from coverage under the FLSA and OMFWSA. Once exclusion from coverage is established, Defendants’ motives or rationales for their actions are immaterial.