`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NEW BEGINNINGS BEHAVIORAL
`HEALTH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-180
`
`
`JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SHONDA CRISP,
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`____________________________________)
`
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KAREN WADDLE,
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`TINA HOWELL
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHERRIE HOWELL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1.
`
`This is an action brought by Shonda Crisp (“Plaintiff”) against New Beginnings
`
`Behavioral Health, LLC (“Defendant New Beginnings”), Karen Waddle (“Defendant Waddle”),
`
`Tina Howell (“Defendant Tina Howell”), and Defendant Sherrie Howell (“Defendant Sherrie
`
`Howell”) (hereinafter Defendant New Beginnings, Defendant Waddle, Defendant Tina Howell,
`
`and Defendant Sherrie Howell will be collectively referred to as “Defendants”).
`
`2.
`
`Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff the state and federally required
`
`minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages for hours she worked in excess of forty
`
`(40) in a given workweek and have also failed to provide, at no charge, information at the request
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: 2
`
`of an employee or person acting on behalf of an employee information including name, address,
`
`occupation, pay rate, hours worked for each day worked, and each amount paid for the specific
`
`employee making such a request, in violation of O.R.C. § 4111.14(G). Plaintiff seeks all available
`
`relief under the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. §§ 4111
`
`et seq., (“the Ohio Wage Act”), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207.
`
`Additionally, Defendants have violated the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. § 4113.15 (“OPPA”)
`
`(the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to collectively as “the Ohio Acts”) by failing
`
`to pay Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of their last date worked.
`
`3.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to recover both unpaid wages and overtime
`
`wages and related damages.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to federal question jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that this case arises under a federal law of the United States.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Ohio state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these claims are so related to Plaintiff’s claims under the
`
`FLSA that they form part of the same controversy.
`
`6.
`
`Venue in the Southern District of Ohio is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`because a substantial part of the unlawful conduct described herein occurred within Lawrence
`
`County, Ohio and Defendants’ place of business resides in this district.
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Shonda Crisp is an adult who resides at 3703 County Rd. 19, Kitts Hill,
`
`Ohio 45645 (Lawrence County). From approximately April 11, 2019 to approximately the middle
`
`of July 2020, Plaintiff Crisp worked for Defendant New Beginnings, Defendant Waddle,
`
`Defendant Tina Howell, and Defendant Sherrie Howell (hereinafter collectively referred to as
`
`“Defendants”) in the State of Ohio at a multitude of Defendants’ locations as a Chemical
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: 3
`
`Dependency Counseling Assistant (CDCA) providing continuing in-house care to patients within
`
`Defendants’ facility. During her shifts, Plaintiff Crisp performed observation of patients, ensured
`
`that patients had their necessary medications, conducted narcotics anonymous meetings (NA)
`
`meetings, and kept track of Defendants’ monitors and cameras at Defendants’ place of business in
`
`Lawrence County, Ohio. Plaintiff Crisp’s signed consent form is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`From approximately April 11, 2019, to approximately the middle of July 2020,
`
`Plaintiff Crisp was a joint “employee” of Defendants as defined by the FLSA, § 203(e)(1), and
`
`within the meaning set forth in the Ohio Wage Act.
`
`9.
`
`During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Crisp was not fully and/or
`
`properly paid for all compensable hours worked because Defendants jointly did not adequately
`
`compensate Plaintiff Crisp for her total hours worked, resulting in unpaid wages and unpaid
`
`overtime wages.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant New Beginnings Behavioral Health, LLC is a domestic for-profit
`
`Limited Liability Corporation doing business out of 322 Spruce Street, Ironton, OH 45638. Process
`
`may be served on its Registered Agent, Karen Waddle, 202 North Fifth Street, Ironton, Ohio
`
`45638.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant New Beginnings operates a mental health clinic that treats alcohol and
`
`drug addiction, and opioid or heroin-specific addiction by offering addiction counselors and in-
`
`house care at its transitional/residential housing facility within the Ironton area.
`
`12.
`
`Per its Articles of Organization, Defendant New Beginnings stated business
`
`purpose is that of providing behavioral healthcare services (mental health counseling, substance
`
`abuse counseling and foster care/residential care) to adults, families, and youth in Ohio.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Karen Waddle is an individual residing in
`
`Pedro, Ohio and is the owner of Defendant New Beginnings. Process may be served on her at 782
`
`State Route 522, Pedro, Ohio 45659.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: 4
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant Tina Howell is an individual residing in
`
`Franklin Furnace, Ohio, is a daughter of Defendant New Beginnings’ owner Defendant Karen
`
`Waddle, and acted as a house monitor supervisor for Defendant New Beginnings. Process may be
`
`served on her at 16 Giant Drive, Franklin Furnace, Ohio 45629.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sherrie Howell is an individual residing in
`
`Coal Grove, Ohio, is a daughter of Defendant new Beginnings’ owner Defendant Karen Waddle,
`
`and acted as an executive director for Defendant New Beginnings. Process may be served on her
`
`at 530 Lane Street, Coal Grove, Ohio 45638.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants jointly operated and continue to operate
`
`the facility at 322 Spruce Street, Ironton, Ohio 45638 (“the Spruce Street Facility”).
`
`17.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants were joint employers within
`
`the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and within the meaning set forth in
`
`the Ohio Wage Act.
`
`18.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly operated an
`
`enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning
`
`of Section 203(s)(1)(B) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(B), in that said enterprise is engaged
`
`in the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or
`
`the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution (regardless of whether
`
`or not such hospital or institution is public or private or operated for profit or not for profit).
`
`19.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly operated an
`
`enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning
`
`of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that said enterprise has had employees
`
`engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or has had employees handling,
`
`selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for
`
`commerce by any person, and in that said enterprise has had and has an annual gross volume of
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: 5
`
`sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 per year (exclusive of excise taxes at the
`
`retail level).
`
`20.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff
`
`to work at the Spruce Street Facility within the meaning of the FLSA, the Ohio Constitution and
`
`the Ohio Acts.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`21.
`
`Defendants are in the business of providing behavioral healthcare services (mental
`
`health counseling, substance abuse counseling and foster care/residential care), to adults, families
`
`and youth in Ohio.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Crisp was jointly employed by Defendants at a multitude of their locations
`
`as a Chemical Dependency Counselor Assistant (CDCA) providing continuing in-house care to
`
`patients within Defendants’ facilities from approximately April 11, 2019, to approximately the
`
`middle of July 2020.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Crisp received her Chemical Dependency Counsel Assistant’s certification
`
`online prior to working for Defendants.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Crisp initially worked at Defendants’ male-facility located at 322 Spruce
`
`Street, Ironton, Ohio 45638, however from approximately July of 2019 to approximately
`
`September of 2019 she worked at Defendants’ female-facility located at 5988 State Route 650,
`
`Ironton, Ohio 45638. After Plaintiff Crisp’s time spent working at Defendants’ female-facility, she
`
`was relocated back to Defendants’ male-facility at 322 Spruce Street (“the Spruce Street Facility”)
`
`and worked there from approximately October of 2019 to approximately the middle of July 2020.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, while Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants,
`
`the Spruce Street Facility held up to twelve (12) clients at a time, of whom none of which were
`
`related to each other.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: 6
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was supposed to be paid through checks
`
`written from Defendant New Beginnings.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants’ as defined in the
`
`FLSA and the Ohio Acts.
`
`28.
`
`During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not fully and properly paid
`
`for all of her compensable hours worked because Defendants jointly did not adequately
`
`compensate all of Plaintiff’s compensable hours, resulting in unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
`
`wages.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek for nearly all
`
`of the time she jointly worked for Defendants.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff’s shifts were regularly scheduled from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. from Monday
`
`through Sunday without a scheduled lunch break.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff was to answer to one or all, depending on the circumstances at work, to
`
`Defendant Waddle, Defendant Sherri Howell, and/or Defendant Tina Howell.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff would receive her tasks and schedules from any of the Defendants and was
`
`expected to complete said tasks and abide by said schedules.
`
`33.
`
`Each of the Defendants would come to and stay at the Spruce Street Facility during
`
`any given workday at approximately varying times in order to supervise employees and give
`
`orders.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Karen Waddle would come to the Spruce Street Facility approximately
`
`once every six months, while Defendant Sherrie Howell would arrive there approximately once a
`
`month and Defendant Tina Howell would arrive there approximately every workday.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff was jointly compensated by Defendants on an hourly basis and not a salary
`
`or fee basis.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: 7
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff’s joint compensation by Defendants consisted of an hourly rate of $11.50
`
`per hour.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff did not receive one and one-half times her regular rate for any hours she
`
`worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.
`
`38.
`
`Per Defendants’ joint policies, Plaintiff would record her time worked by physically
`
`writing her hours worked on timesheets kept by Defendants.
`
`39.
`
`Upon completion of a time sheet, Plaintiff was to turn in her timesheet to Defendant
`
`Sherrie Howell at the Spruce Street Facility.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff regularly worked over forty (40) hours
`
`within a given workweek during her time jointly employed by Defendants.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Jointly, Defendants regularly failed to pay Plaintiff her due overtime pay.
`
`Instead, Defendants’ joint pay practice regarding overtime hours was for Plaintiff
`
`to keep track of her hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek and to allocate those hours as
`
`“comp hours” for the potential to take paid time-off instead of paying 150% of Plaintiff’s regular
`
`rate for all hours worked in a workweek.
`
`43.
`
`This pay practice jointly put in place by Defendants resulted in Plaintiff not being
`
`paid the state and federally mandated one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours
`
`worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants jointly fell behind in their payment of
`
`employees several times, ultimately missing several payments to Plaintiff in July. In response,
`
`Plaintiff stated to Defendants that she would not work until she is paid for the work she has already
`
`done, of which she has still not been compensated for.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes she is owed approximately one
`
`hundred (100) hours of pay by Defendants.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: 8
`
`46.
`
`As a matter of economic reality, Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff at the Spruce
`
`Street Facility.
`
`47.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly operated the Spruce
`
`Street Facility.
`
`48.
`
`During all times material to this complaint Defendants had significant joint
`
`operational control of all or at least significant aspects of the day-to-day operations of the Spruce
`
`Street Facility.
`
`49.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly made decisions in
`
`regard to significant aspects of the day-to-day functions of the Spruce Street Facility.
`
`50.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants had the joint-authority to
`
`hire and fire employees, including Plaintiff.
`
`51.
`
`During all times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly and, either directly
`
`or through their employees’, supervised Plaintiff, and controlled Plaintiff’s work schedule and her
`
`employment conditions.
`
`52.
`
`In response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Request sent by Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel on October 14, 2020, requesting a Compliance Action Report and Narrative of Defendant
`
`New Beginnings’ relating to any of Defendants’ previous Fair Labor Standards Acts (“FLSA”)
`
`investigations conducted by the Department of Labor (“DOL”), Plaintiff learned that Defendants
`
`had two (2) prior FLSA violations resulting in payment—one in 2018 and one in 2019.
`
`53.
`
`On or about November 2, 2020, Plaintiff, through her attorney, sent her respective
`
`records request pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.14(G), to which no reply containing employment
`
`records was ever received.
`
`54.
`
`The unpaid work, both at Plaintiff’s regular rate and the hours worked in excess of
`
`forty (40) in a workweek that should have been paid at one and one-half times her regular rate,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: 9
`
`performed by Plaintiff directly benefited Defendants by reducing the cost of labor for Defendants
`
`who willfully withheld compensation for that work from her.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff was furthering the business purposes of the Spruce Street Facility
`
`enterprise when she performed her job duties and when she performed the tasks that were integral
`
`and indispensable to her principal work activities.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff was not paid on a salary basis and did not receive at least $455.00 per week
`
`for all weeks she worked.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff was Defendants’ joint, “non-exempt” employee at the Spruce Street
`
`Facility under the FLSA, the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Wage Act.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff was not in a job classification and did not perform job duties which were
`
`exempt from the mandate under the FLSA, the Ohio Constitution, and/or the Ohio Wage Act to
`
`pay for all hours worked and/or overtime.
`
`59.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ joint unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
`
`suffered a loss of income and federal and Ohio wage violations.
`
`60.
`
`The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act requires Defendants to pay overtime compensation
`
`to its employees at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for the hours they worked
`
`in excess of forty. 29 U.S.C. § 207; O.R.C. §§ 4111.03, 4111.10.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants’ violations of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts are willful because
`
`Defendants did not have a good faith basis for the way they paid Plaintiff.
`
`V.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 34A OF THE OHIO
`CONSTITUTION AND O.R.C. 4111 FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE OHIO
`MINIMUM WAGE
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in the
`
`62.
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: 10
`
`63.
`
`Section 34a of Article II of the Ohio Constitution (“Ohio Constitution”) requires
`
`that every employer shall pay each of the employer’s employees at a wage rate of not less than the
`
`wage rate specified in Section 34a.
`
`64.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint in 2019, the Ohio minimum wage for non-
`
`exempt employees was $8.55 per hour.
`
`65.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint in 2020, the Ohio minimum wage for non-
`
`exempt employees was $8.70 per hour.
`
`66.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was not exempt from the minimum
`
`wage provisions of the Ohio Constitution or the Ohio Wage Act.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants jointly violated the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Wage Act by refusing
`
`to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked between approximately April 11, 2019 and approximately the
`
`middle of July of 2020, as Defendants jointly did not pay Plaintiff all wages for all hours worked.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants missed several payments owed to Plaintiff in July for compensable
`
`work which she had already performed. Plaintiff has yet to be compensated for this previously
`
`performed work.
`
`69.
`
`In violating the Ohio Constitution or the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants jointly acted
`
`willfully, without a good faith basis and with reckless disregard of applicable Ohio law.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ joint failure to pay Plaintiff the lawful Ohio minimum wage rates
`
`constitutes a violation of the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Wage Act resulting in Plaintiff’s
`
`entitlement to treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs and any other such relief the Court would
`
`grant.
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: 11
`
`COUNT II
`FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
`
`
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in the
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`72.
`
`During all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were joint “employers” as
`
`defined by the FLSA, § 203(d).
`
`73.
`
`During all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a joint “employee” of
`
`Defendants as defined by the FLSA, § 203(e)(1).
`
`74.
`
`Defendants, as described above, jointly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207, by failing to pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate for all hours worked in
`
`excess of forty (40) per workweek.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because inter alia,
`
`she was not an “executive,” “administrative,” or “learned professional” employee, as those terms
`
`are defined under the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff was not paid on a salary basis and was not paid at least $455.00 per week
`
`for every week she worked.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because, inter
`
`alia, she was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term is defined under the FLSA. See
`
`29 C.F.R. § 541.301.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff should have been paid the correct overtime rate for all hours worked in
`
`excess of forty hours per workweek during the three years from the filing date of the Complaint.
`
`79.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as
`
`a Chemical Dependency Counselor Assistant (CDCA) in furtherance of their business purpose of
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: 12
`
`providing behavioral healthcare services (mental health counseling, substance abuse counseling
`
`and foster care/residential care), to adults, families, and youth in Ohio.
`
`80.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants regularly jointly employed
`
`Plaintiff to work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek.
`
`81.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff did not receive one and one-half
`
`times her regular rate for any hours she worked more than forty (40) in a workweek as
`
`compensation at an hourly rate for all hours worked.
`
`82.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants jointly violated the FLSA by
`
`repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked.
`
`83.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants jointly violated the FLSA by
`
`repeatedly failing to pay Plaintiff the legally mandated overtime premium at a rate no less than
`
`one and one-half Plaintiff’s regular pay rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) worked in
`
`one workweek.
`
`84.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of
`
`the FLSA. Defendants jointly willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation to
`
`which Plaintiff is entitled.
`
`85.
`
`Defendants jointly willfully violated and continue to willfully violate the FLSA, by
`
`having engaged and continuing to engage in conduct, which demonstrates a joint willful and/or
`
`reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA.
`
`COUNT III
`OHIO WAGE ACT
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`87.
`
`The Ohio Wage Act provides that covered employees shall be compensated for
`
`every hour worked in one workweek. See R.C. §§ 4111, et seq.; see also 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: 13
`
`88.
`
`The Ohio Wage Act provides that employees shall receive overtime compensation
`
`at a rate “not less than one and one-half times” the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours
`
`worked over forty (40) hours in one workweek, “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 1937.”
`
`See R.C. § 4111.03(A); 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
`
`89.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were joint “employers” covered
`
`by the Ohio Wage Act and have been thus required to comply with its mandates.
`
`90.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a covered “employee” of
`
`Defendants’ pursuant to the Ohio Wage Act and thus entitled to the Ohio Wage Act’s protections.
`
`91.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants jointly violated the Ohio Wage
`
`Act by repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, including Defendants’ joint
`
`repeated action of refusing to compensate Plaintiff for both hours worked within a workweek and
`
`all hours worked over forty hours in one workweek at a rate not less than one and one-half times.
`
`92.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff did not receive one and one-half
`
`times her regular rate for any hours she worked more than forty (40) in a workweek as
`
`compensation at an hourly rate for all hours worked.
`
`93.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants jointly violated the Ohio Wage
`
`Act by repeatedly failing to pay Plaintiff the legally mandated overtime premium at a rate no less
`
`than one and one-half Plaintiff’s regular pay rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)
`
`worked in one workweek.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff is not exempt from the wage protections of Ohio Law. During relevant
`
`times, Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving overtime because she was not an “executive,”
`
`“administrative,” “professional,” “outside sales” or “computer” employees, as those terms are
`
`defined under the FLSA. See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also C.F.R. §§ 541.0.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: 14
`
`95.
`
`In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants joint acts and omissions have been of
`
`a willful, intentional, and bad faith nature or otherwise in reckless disregard of the Ohio Wage Act.
`
`COUNT IV
`OHIO PROMPT PAY ACT-
`FAILURE TO PROMPTLY PAY WAGES
`
`
`
`96.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`97.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were Plaintiff’s joint
`
`“employers”, and were required to comply with the Ohio Prompt Pay Act’s provisions. See R.C.
`
`§ 4113.15.
`
`98.
`
`The OPPA provides that employers shall pay covered employees all wages,
`
`including overtime, on or before the first day of each month for wages earned during the first half
`
`of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day thereof, and, on or before the fifteenth day
`
`of each month, for wages earned during the preceding calendar month. See R.C. § 4113.15(A).
`
`99.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have refused to promptly pay
`
`Plaintiff—Defendants have missed, and have not yet paid, several payments owed to Plaintiff in
`
`approximately July of 2020—within (30) days of performing the work. See R.C. § 4113.15(A).
`
`100. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have jointly refused to pay
`
`Plaintiff’s wages for all hours worked and Defendants have jointly refused to pay Plaintiff all owed
`
`overtime wages at one and one-half times her normal hourly rate, within thirty (30) days of
`
`performing the work. See R.C. § 4113.15(B).
`
`101. Plaintiff’s wages remain unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond her regularly
`
`scheduled payday.
`
`102. Defendants’ joint violations of the OPPA have been of a willful, intentional, or bad
`
`faith nature or were otherwise exhibited a reckless disregard of the OPPA’s provisions.
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: 15
`
`COUNT V
`VIOLATIONS OF O.R.C. § 4111.14(G)
`FAILURE TO PROVIDE RECORDS AS TO
`WAGES AND HOURS WORKED
`
`103. Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in the
`
`preceding paragraphs.
`
`104. O.R.C. § 4111.14(G) requires employers provide, at no charge, information at the
`
`request of an employee or person acting on behalf of an employee information including name,
`
`address, occupation, pay rate, hours worked for each day worked, and each amount paid for the
`
`specific employee making such a request.
`
`105. On or about November 2, 2020 Plaintiff requested such records through her
`
`attorney.
`
`106. Pursuant to the records request, a response to Plaintiff’s request was due on or about
`
`December 2, 2020.
`
`107. To date, the employer has not provided records pursuant to the request under O.R.C.
`
`§ 4111.14(G).
`
`108.
`
`In violating under O.R.C. § 4111.14(G) of the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants have
`
`jointly acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all her claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Shonda Crisp (“Plaintiff”) prays that this Court enter the
`
`following relief:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Expectation and damages for all missed payments taken from or applied to
`
`Plaintiff’s pay;
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00180-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/17/21 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 16
`
`
`
`2.
`
`An order awarding Plaintiff back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime
`
`and hourly pay for three (3) years preceding the filing of this complaint to the present, plus an
`
`additional equal amount in liquidated damages;
`
`
`
`3.
`
`An order awarding Plaintiff back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid minimum
`
`wages and treble damages;
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.14(J), an order awarding an amount set by the court
`
`sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and deter future violations by the Defendants of the Ohio Wage
`
`Act, but not less than one hundred fifty dollars for each day that the violation continued;
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff the sum of 6% of the total unpaid wages or $200.00 for each
`
`instance of failure to pay wages owed within thirty days, whichever is greater, pursuant to the Ohio
`
`Prompt Pay Act, § 4113.15(A).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`An Order against Defendants pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.14 for failure to produce
`
`records upon request.
`
`An order awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and,
`
`Any other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
`WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`/s/Robert E. DeRose
`Robert E. DeRose (OH Bar No. 0055214)
`4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
`Columbus, OH 43219
`Phone: (614) 221-4221
`Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
`bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`