(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)   (Violations of Ohio Revised Code 4111.03)   14.  Defendant manufactures laboratory equipment and instruments for distribution to  its customers worldwide.    15.  Defendant employed Plaintiff Chance Clark as a manufacturing employee between  October 2018 and July 2019.  Specifically, Plaintiff was an assembly worker.    16.  Defendant employed other similarly situated employees as manufacturing  employees.    17.  Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as non-exempt  and paid them an hourly wage.    18.  Defendant subjected Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to the same  policies, practices and procedures, including pay policies, practices, and procedures.   19.  Plaintiff worked on average between 50 and 60 hours per week.   (Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked)   20.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were only paid for  work performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were not paid for the following  work performed before and after their scheduled start and stop time: a) changing into and out of  personal protective equipment; b) getting tools and equipment that were necessary to perform their  Case: 2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: 3 4  manufacturing work; c) walking to their assigned area of the manufacturing floor; and/or d)  performing their manufacturing work.   21.  The time Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees spent a)  changing into and out of personal protective equipment; b) getting tools and equipment that were  necessary to perform their manufacturing work; c) walking to their assigned area of the  manufacturing floor; and/or d) performing their manufacturing work was an integral and  indispensable part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for  Defendant’s benefit.   22.  Changing into and out of personal protective equipment; b) getting tools and  equipment that were necessary to perform their manufacturing work; c) walking to their assigned  area of the manufacturing floor; and/or d) performing their manufacturing work are intrinsic  elements of their job duties.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees cannot  dispense with these tasks if they are to be able to perform their work.   23.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were not paid for  time spent a) changing into and out of personal protective equipment; b) getting tools and  equipment that were necessary to perform their manufacturing work; c) walking to their assigned  area of the manufacturing floor; and/or d) performing their manufacturing work.   24.  The amount of time Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees  spent on this required and unpaid work amounted to approximately 10 to 20 minutes each day.   25.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated manufacturing employees were not compensated for all of the time they worked, including  all of the overtime hours they worked over 40 each workweek.  Case: 2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: 4 5  (Defendant Willfully Violated the FLSA)   26.  Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of  the FLSA.  27.  Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on his 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.   28.  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 himself is a  member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All former and current manufacturing employees of Thermo Fisher  Scientific Asheville LLC between August 20, 2017 and the present.   29.  Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon  information and belief, avers that it consists of at several hundred persons.   30.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as to claims for unpaid 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 claims for unpaid wages and damages.  Plaintiff is  representative of those other employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as his  own in bringing this action.   31.  These similarly situated employees 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 in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  Case: 2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: 5 6  and costs under the FLSA.  32.  Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)  on behalf of himself and all other members of the class (“the Ohio Class”) defined as:  All former and current manufacturing employees of Thermo Fisher  Scientific Asheville LLC in the State of Ohio between August 20,  2017 and the present.   33.  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, avers that it consists of at least several hundred persons.    34.  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  manufacturing employees for hours worked in excess of 40 each  workweek; and  (b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and other  members of the class for Defendant’s violation of R.C. § 4111.03  and § 4111.10.   35.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of other members of the  Ohio Class.  Named 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 the other Ohio Class  members.    36.  Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   His 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: 2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: 6 7  case.   37.  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  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   38.  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.  39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   40.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  manufacturing employees for all time worked and 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 each workweek violated  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and 29 CFR § 785.24.   41.  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 manufacturing  employees violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, 29 CFR § 516.2(a)(7).  Case: 2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: 7 8   42.  By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly,  and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.    43.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated manufacturing employees have been damages in that they have not received wages due to  them pursuant to the FLSA.   44.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    45.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  manufacturing employees for all time worked and 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 each workweek violated  the OMFWSA, R.C. § 4111.03.   46.  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 manufacturing  employees violated the OMFWSA, R.C. § 4111.03.   47.  By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly  and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the OMFWSA.   48.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated manufacturing employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due  to them pursuant to the OMFWSA. 