(FLSA Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Class)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   11.  Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and all members of the Ohio Class are current or former non-exempt employees of  Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: 2 3  Defendant who were paid on an hourly basis and not paid overtime compensation for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in certain workweeks.     12.  Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and the members of the Ohio Class frequently worked more than forty (40) hours in a  single workweek, many times in excess of ten per week, entitling them to overtime compensation  under the FLSA and Ohio wage-and-hour statutes.   Defendant’s Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation   13.  The FLSA, and Ohio law required Defendant to pay overtime compensation to its  home healthcare workers including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.     14.  Defendant unlawfully failed to pay all overtime compensation due to its home  healthcare workers including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.   15.  Specifically, and among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the  Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class any compensation for the time spent traveling during the  work day, in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous workday rule.    16.  Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, Plaintiff, the Potential  Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class was entitled to overtime pay under state and/or federal law.   17.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    18.  Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability” prescribed by the FLSA “may  be maintained against any employer … by any one or more employees for and on behalf of  himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”  Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: 3 4   19.  The Potential Opt-Ins who are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff with respect to  Defendant’s FLSA violations consist of:  All present and former home healthcare employees of Defendant during  the period beginning three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to  the present, who were not paid overtime compensation for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in one workweek.   20.  Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations  in that all were non-exempt employees of Defendant, all were subjected to and injured by  Defendant’s unlawful practice of failing to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) in one workweek, and all have the same claims against Defendant for unpaid  overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.   21.  Conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) is proper and necessary so that such persons may be sent a Court-authorized notice  informing them of the pendency of this action and giving them the opportunity to “opt in.”   22.  Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons but avers,  upon information and belief, that they consist of over 40 persons.  Such persons are readily  identifiable through the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was required to maintain,  pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio Const. art.  II, § 34a.   Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: 4 5  23.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   24.  Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of themselves and other members of a class of persons who assert claims under the laws  of the State of Ohio (the “Ohio Class”), defined as:  All present and former home healthcare employees of Defendant who  were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of  forty (40) in one workweek during the period beginning two years  preceding the filing of this litigation to the present.   25.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of class members but avers, upon information and  belief, that it consists of over 40 persons.  The number of class members as well as their  identities are ascertainable from the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was required  to maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio  Const. art. II, § 34a.   26.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to:  Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members  all overtime pay due to them, including, but not limited to, all  travel time required to be paid pursuant to the continuous work day  rule?  Whether Defendant kept adequate records of the hours worked by  Plaintiff and the other class members?     27.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant, and are based  on the same legal theories, as the claims of other class members.  Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: 5 6   28.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of other  class members.  Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action litigation,  including wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio  Class in this case.   29.  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 class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   30.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring 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 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 as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to  be adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   31.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   32.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on  behalf of herself and the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).  Plaintiff’s written consent to becoming a party to this action pursuant to § 216(b) is  being filed with the Court as an exhibit to this Complaint.  Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: 6 7   33.  Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins should have been paid overtime compensation  at the rate of one-half times their “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per  workweek.   34.  Defendant failed to pay all overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the  Potential Opt-Ins for certain workweeks.   35.  Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the  Potential Opt-Ins for all time traveling in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous  work day rule.    36.  By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   37.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Potential Opt- Ins were injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the  FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime compensation” as well  as “an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”  Section 216(b) further provides that  “[t]he court … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a  reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”   38.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    39.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation statute,  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of herself, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this  case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and all members of the Ohio Class for which certification is  sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  Case: 2:18-cv-00493-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: 7 8   40.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.   41.  Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code  Ann. § 4111.03, by failing to pay all overtime compensation to its home healthcare workers  including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.   42.  Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the  Potential Opt-Ins for all time traveling in violation of the Department of Labor’s continuous  work day rule.    43.  Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff, the  Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class members in that they did not receive overtime  compensation due to them pursuant to that statute.   44.  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Defendant, having violated §  4111.03, is “liable to the employee[s] affected for the full amount of the overtime wage rate, less  any amount actually paid to the employee[s] by the employer, and for costs and reasonable  attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”   Non-Exempt Employees’  