Wengerd v. Self-Reliance, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cv-293 |
| Parties | CINDY WENGERD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SELF-RELIANCE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Plaintiff Cindy Wengerd and Plaintiff Sarah Walker, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals (Plaintiffs), bring this case asserting that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., the Ohio Wage Act, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, 4111.03, and 4111.10, and the Prompt Payment Act, O.R.C. § 4113.06(A), (B).
This case is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #16), Plaintiffs' Opposition (Doc. #31), Defendant's Reply Memorandum (Doc. #32), and the record as a whole.
Defendant is an Ohio corporation that "provides in-home family supports for children and adults with challenging behaviors, developmental disabilities, and other disabilities in Ohio...." (Doc. #1, PageID #3). Plaintiff Wengerd was employed by Defendant as "Direct Care Staff" from approximately October 2009 to March 2015, and Plaintiff Walker was employed by Defendant as "Direct Care Staff" from approximately December 2014 to March 2015. Id. at 2.
On August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant. (Doc. #1). On April 1, 2016, after the deadline for amending pleadings passed, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading. (Doc. #16). Shortly thereafter, on April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. #19). On May 12, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. #24), and this Court granted Defendant's Motion and ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. #29). In addition, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to "address why an amended complaint would not be futile and include a proposed amended complaint." Id. On July 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response with a proposed amended complaint, and on August 8, 2016, Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. #s 31, 32).
A Rule 12(c) motion "is granted when no material issue of fact exists and the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Paskvan v. Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm'n, 946 F.2d 1233, 1235 (6th Cir. 1991); see Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) ("The standard of reviewfor a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."). "[T]o survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain (1) 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible,' (2) more than 'a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements,' and (3) allegations that suggest a 'right to relief above a speculative level.'" Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
"In reviewing the motion, [the Court] must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Hoven v. Walgreen Co., 751 F.3d 778, 783 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Defendant is exempt from the FLSA's overtime protections under the "companionship services exception." (Doc. #16, PageID #106). Defendant further contends that because Plaintiffs' individual claims fail, their collective action must also be dismissed. Id. at 113. Defendant also asserts that the remaining state claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because the Ohio overtime requirement is also subject to the companionship exception. Id. at 114-15. Last, Defendant argues Plaintiffs should not be permitted to file an amended complaint because it is futile, untimely, and prejudicial to Defendant. (Doc. #32, PageID #265).
Plaintiffs maintain that they have pleaded enough facts to show that they were not "domestic service employees" and the companionship services exception does not apply. (Doc. #31, PageID #227). Plaintiffs also assert that their proposed amended complaint is not futile and they should be permitted to file it. Id. at 231.
a. "Companionship Services Exception"
Under the FLSA, an employee who works more than forty hours in a workweek must receive overtime compensation "at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2). However, this overtime provision does not apply to "an employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves...." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). During Plaintiffs' employment, the Regulations defined "companionship services" broadly:
[T]he term companionship services shall mean those services which provide fellowship, care, and protection for a person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for his or her own needs. Such services may include household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person such as meal preparation, bed making, washing of clothes, and other similar services. They may also include the performance of general household work: Provided, however, That such work is incidental, i.e., does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.
29 C.F.R. § 552.6.2
The Department of Labor issued an opinion letter in March 1995 to clarify the distinction between "household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person" and "general household work:"
[I]t is our opinion that such activities as cleaning the patient's bedroom, bathroom or kitchen, picking up groceries, medicine, and dry cleaning would be related to personal care of the patient and would be the type of household work that would be exempt work for purpose of section 13(a)(15) of the FLSA. However, activities involving heavy cleaning such as cleaning refrigerators, ovens, trash or garbage removal and cleaning the rest of a "trashy" house would be general household work or nonexempt work that is subject to the 20 percent time limitation.
Opinion Letter FLSA, 1995 WL 1032475, at *1 (Dep't of Labor March 16, 1995).
"[A]n employee who brings a suit under the FLSA for unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation 'has the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated." Foster v. Americare Healthcare Servs., 150 F.Supp.3d 686, 877 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (citing Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds, 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)). However, "[e]xemptions from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime coverage... are to be narrowly construed against employers." Salyer, 83 F.3d at 786. Additionally, the "exemptions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 213 are affirmative defenses that defendants must prove." Hopkins v. Chartrand, 566 F. App'x 445, 448 (6th Cir.2014) (citing Franklin v. Kellogg Co., 619 F.3d 604, 611 (6th Cir. 2010)). Although Defendant bears the burden of proof, "[a] complainant can plead himself out of court by including factual allegations that establish that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief as a matter of law." Gorman v. Chicago, 777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); see Cheatom v. Quicken Loans, 587 F.App'x. 276, 279 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 841, 131 S.Ct. 220, 178 L.Ed.2d 47 (2010)) ("A motion to dismiss will be granted only if 'the alleged facts do not set forth an adequate claim or if the face of the complaint demonstrates that relief is barred by an affirmative defense.'").
(Doc. #1, PageID #3), (Doc. #31-1, PageID #238).
Generally, most of these activities fall under the definition of companionship services. Administering medication, personal hygiene care, dressing, grooming, meal preparation, making beds, and washing clothes are specifically exempt under the definition of companionship services. 29 C.F.R. § 552.6; see Salyer, 83 F.3d at 787( that helping her husband dress, giving him medication, helping him bathe, assisting him in getting around their house, and cleaning his bedclothes "fall squarely within the plain language of the statutory definition of 'companionship services'...."); Jones v. Elect Home Care, LLC, 2015 WL 7709425, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. July 1, 2016) (); Torres v. Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Homecare Council, Inc., 2009 WL 1086935, at *3-4 (E.D. NY April 22, 2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial