(Ohio Minimum Wage Violations – Ohio 4111.14(K) Collective)  63)  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  64)  Defendants are individual and joint “employers” covered by the minimum wage  requirements of the Ohio Wage Laws.  65)  The Ohio Wage Laws requires that non-exempt employees be paid at least the  lawful minimum wage for each hour worked in a workweek.  66)  As employees of Defendants, Plaintiff and others similarly situated work or worked  hours in a workweek in which they were not paid a minimum wage.  67)  Defendants jointly violated the Ohio Wage Laws by having a company-wide policy  of not paying Plaintiff and others similarly situated drive time, which resulted in unpaid minimum  wages in the last three (3) years.  68)  Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not exempt under the Ohio Wage Laws.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 10 of 14  PAGEID #: 10 11  69)  Defendants’ failure to keep records of all drive time for each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees further violated  the Ohio Wage Laws.  70)  By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendants willfully, knowingly,  and/or recklessly violated provisions of the Ohio Wage Laws.  71)  As a result of Defendants’ practices, Plaintiff and the Ohio 4111.14(K) Collective  members have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to the  Ohio Wage Laws; and because wages remain unpaid, damages continue.  72)  Pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, Plaintiff are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs  incurred.   (Overtime Violations – Ohio Overtime Class)  73)  Plaintiff incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  74)  Ohio law requires employers to pay overtime 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  1938," 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 207, 213, as amended; and O.R.C. § 4111.03(A).  75)  Defendants are individual and joint “employers” covered by the overtime  requirements set forth in the OMFWSA.  76)  The OMFWSA requires that non-exempt employees be paid for hours worked in  excess of 40 in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half their regular rates.  77)  As employees of Defendants, Plaintiff and others similarly situated work or worked  more than 40 hours in a workweek, but were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked  in excess of 40.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 11 of 14  PAGEID #: 11 12  78)  Defendants violated the OMFWSA by having a company-wide policy by not  paying Plaintiff and others similarly situated drive time, which resulted in unpaid overtime.  79)  Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not exempt under the OMFWSA.  80)  Defendants’ practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees drive time resulted in not being paid overtime compensation at a rate of one and one- half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) each workweek in violation  of the OMFWSA.  81)  By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly,  and/or recklessly violated provisions of the OMFWSA.  82)  As a result of Defendants’ practices, Plaintiff and the Ohio Overtime Class  members have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to the  OMFWSA; and because wages remain unpaid, damages continue.  83)  Pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs  incurred.  (Overtime – FLSA Collective)  55)  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  56)  Defendants are individual and joint “employers” covered by the minimum wage  and overtime requirements of the FLSA.  57)  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees be paid for hours worked in excess  of 40 in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rates.  58)  As employees of Defendants, Plaintiff and others similarly situated work or worked  more than 40 hours in a workweek, but were not paid for drive time which resulted in unpaid  overtime in those workweeks.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 9 of 14  PAGEID #: 9 10  59)  Defendants’ failure to keep records of all drive time each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees violated the  12)  At all relevant times, Defendants are and have been individually and jointly in the  business of providing home health care.  13)  Plaintiff and others similarly situated were jointly employed by Defendants as non- exempt home health care providers.  14)  Plaintiff and others similarly situated were required to travel to and from more than  on work location within the same work day, but were not paid for this drive time.   15)  Drive times for Plaintiff and others similarly situated ranged from 15 to 20 minutes  to as much as 45 to 60 minutes, depending on the location and time of day.  16)  Plaintiff typically worked Monday through Fridays.   Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 3 of 14  PAGEID #: 3 4  17)  Plaintiff’s hourly rate ranged from about $8.50 to $8.56 per hour.  18)  Plaintiff and others similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours in a  workweek.  19)  Defendants’ failure to pay drive time resulted in minimum wage and overtime  violations.  20)  Further, in the week of October 15 to October 19, 2018, Plaintiff worked 30 hours,  but was paid only 24 hours, for an underpayment of six (6) hours. At $8.56 per hour, this resulted  in an Ohio minimum wage violation.  21)  Plaintiff estimates approximately 50 to 75 similarly situated employees.  22)  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employees of  Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Laws.   23)  At all relevant times, Defendants were individual and joint employers within the  meaning of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Laws.  24)  At all relevant times, Defendants comprised an enterprise engaged in commerce or  in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).  25)  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employees engaged  in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206- 207.  26)  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not exempt from  the protections of the FLSA or the Ohio Wage Laws.  27)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared operational control over significant aspects  of the day-to-day functions of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 4 of 14  PAGEID #: 4 5  28)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared the authority to hire, fire and discipline  employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated.  29)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared the authority to set rates and methods of  compensation of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   30)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared the authority to control the work schedules  and employment conditions of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.  31)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared ultimate authority and control of  employment records.   32)  At all relevant times, Defendants have mutually benefitted from the work  performed by Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   33)  At all relevant times, Defendants have not acted entirely independently of each  other and have not been completely disassociated with respect to Plaintiff and others similarly  situated.   34)  At all relevant times, Defendants shared the services of Plaintiff and others  similarly situated.   35)  At all relevant times, Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interest of each  other in relation to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.  36)  Defendants knowingly and willfully engaged in the violations of the FLSA and the  Ohio Wage Laws described herein.  37)  The exact amount of unpaid wages, including minimum wages and/or overtime  compensation that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated is not yet known  by Plaintiff, because most, if not all, records needed to make such calculations are within the  possession or control of Defendants or were not kept by Defendants.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 5 of 14  PAGEID #: 5 6  38)  The FLSA and the Ohio Wage Laws require employers to make, keep, and preserve  records of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, and to preserve  such records. To the extent that Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve records of all  required and unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, including  drive time, Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable estimate of such time.  39)  Plaintiff incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  40)  Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and  on behalf of other similarly situated employees who have been, are being, or will be, adversely  affected by Defendants’ unlawful conduct.  41)  The collective 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 is herself  a member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All former and current Home Health Aides, or similar home care providers with  different job titles, who worked at more than one location in a workday during any  workweek within three (3) years preceding the Complaint filing date and through the  final disposition of this matter (the “FLSA Collective”).  42)  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 is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her own  in bringing this action.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 6 of 14  PAGEID #: 6 7  43)  The similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily  identifiable through Defendants’ 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  and costs under the FLSA.  44)  Plaintiff incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  45)  Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly  situated employees pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.14(K) who have been, are being, or will be,  adversely affected by Defendants’ unlawful conduct.  46)  The collective which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the  right to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the Ohio collective action, and of which Plaintiff is  herself a member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All former and current Home Health Aides, or similar home care providers with  different job titles, who worked at more than one location in a workday during any  workweek within two (2) years preceding the Complaint filing date and through the  final disposition of this matter (the “Ohio 4111.14(K) Collective”).  47)  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to O.R.C.  §4111.14(K) as to claims for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs under the Ohio Wage Laws. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees  are similarly situated with regard to her claim for unpaid wages and damages. Plaintiff is  representative of those other employees and is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her own  in bringing this action.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 7 of 14  PAGEID #: 7 8  48)  The similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily  identifiable through Defendants’ payroll records. These individuals may readily be notified of this  action and allowed to opt-in pursuant to O.R.C. § 41114.14(K), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the Ohio Wage Laws.  49)  Plaintiff further brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on  behalf of herself and a class of current or former employees employed by Defendants in Ohio,  defined as:   All former and current Home Health Aides, or similar home care providers with  different job titles, who worked at more than one location in a workday during any  workweek within two (2) years preceding the Complaint filing date and through the  final disposition of this matter (the “Ohio Overtime Class”).  50)  The class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. Plaintiff  is unable to state the exact size of the potential Ohio Overtime Class; but, upon information and  belief avers that each class consists of at least 50 to 75 employees (the exact number will be in  Defendants’ records).  51)  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Overtime Class including:  whether Defendants’ practices in Ohio resulted in its employees not being paid overtime wages  and whether such wages remain unpaid.  52)  Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Overtime Class members.  Her interests are not antagonistic to but, rather, are in unison with, the interests of the Ohio  Overtime Class members. 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 Overtime Class in this  case.  Case: 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/29/19 Page: 8 of 14  PAGEID #: 8 9  53)  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Overtime Class  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The primary questions that  will determine Defendants’ liability to the class are common to each class as a whole and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  54)  Class action treatment is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy. Requiring Ohio Overtime 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 Overtime 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. 