United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Defendant, Active Plumbing Supply Company (hereafter
“Active Plumbing”). (ECF #13). Plaintiff,
Kristine DuPont, (hereafter “Ms. DuPont”), filed
an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF #14),
and Active Plumbing filed its Reply in Support. (ECF #17).
Therefore, this matter is fully briefed and ripe for review.
reasons more fully set forth herein, Active Plumbing's
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
following facts are not in dispute. Ms. DuPont worked as a
kitchen and bath designer and showroom associate at Active
Plumbing in Avon, Ohio, from June 3, 2014 through May 3,
2016. (ECF #14, p. 1). Active Plumbing paid Ms. DuPont a
salary that covered the 40 hours she was regularly scheduled
to work each week. (ECF #13, p. 2). Ms. DuPont's job
responsibilities also included out-of-office appointments, at
customers' sites, which occurred after hours and often
times resulted in Ms. DuPont working more than 40 hours per
week. (ECF #14, p.2) Active Plumbing paid Ms. DuPont overtime
wages on multiple occasions throughout 2014 and 2015.
DuPont alleges in this matter that she is owed additional
overtime compensation, at the rate of one and on-half times
her regular rate of pay, which Active Plumbing failed to pay
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(hereafter “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201
et seq. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Active
Plumbing argues that it is not liable to Ms. DuPont because
Ms. DuPont failed to report these hours, despite the
reasonable process established by Active Plumbing for
submitting overtime hours. (ECF #13, p.8).
judgment is appropriate when the court is satisfied
“that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56©. A fact is
“material”only if its resolution will affect the
outcome of the lawsuit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Accordingly, proper
summary judgment analysis entails “the threshold
inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial
- whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual
issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact
because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either
party.” Id. at 250. It is with these standards
in mind that the instant Motion must be decided.
207(a) of the FLSA generally requires that employers pay
employees specified hourly rates up to 40 hours per week, and
pay overtime compensation of one and one-half times the
regular rate for hours worked above that threshold amount. 29
U.S.C. § 207. In order to prevail in this lawsuit, Ms.
DuPont must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she
performed overtime work for which she was not properly
compensated. Wilson v. PrimeSource Health Care of Ohio,
Inc., 2017 WL 2869341, at *9 (N.D.Ohio July 5,
2017)(citation omitted). Therefore, in order to survive
summary judgment, Ms. DuPont must put forward enough evidence
to create a genuine issue of fact regarding (1) whether she
worked uncompensated overtime hours; and, (2) whether Active
Plumbing knew or should have known about the uncompensated
overtime hours. Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC,
823 F.3d 382, 392 (6th Cir. 2016)(citation
the issue of whether Ms. DuPont worked the additional,
uncompensated, overtime hours claimed, Active Plumbing
“is not arguing that Plaintiff did not work these
hours” for purposes of its summary judgment motion.
(See ECF #17, p. 1). We therefore turn to the issue of
whether Active Plumbing knew or should have known about these
uncompensated hours. Active Plumbing argues that Ms. DuPont
has “cited no evidence that Defendant had actual
knowledge of Plaintiff working overtime hours that she was
not paid for.” (ECF #17, p. 2). Further, Active
Plumbing argues that it cannot be said to have had
constructive knowledge of Ms. DuPont's overtime because
she failed to report these hours, and the “overtime
hours were mostly related to offsite appointments, which
Defendant would not know about.” (ECF #17, p.3)
DuPont argues that while she was able to report some of her
overtime hours during the course of her employment at Active
Plumbing, there are other instances where she was prevented
from reporting the hours. (ECF #14, p.11). Ms. DuPont claims
that she “was perpetually told that she was
‘salaried, ' ‘exempt, ' and not entitled
to overtime compensation, ” and told by human resources
employees at Active Plumbing “not to track or
report” her overtime hours. (ECF #14, p. 12). Ms.
DuPont argues that testimony from Active Plumbing employees,
as well as company records and calendars, will show that
Active Plumbing knew of these overtime hours, and are
therefore liable to her for the unpaid overtime wages.
upon the foregoing, this Court finds that there is a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Active Plumbing knew or
had reason to believe that Ms. DuPont was working overtime,
and failed to pay her for these hours in violation of the
FLSA. See Craig, supra. Summary judgment would be
inappropriate in this matter, as the issue of whether a party
had the requisite knowledge is a question of fact for a jury
to decide. Id. (citation omitted).
reasons set forth herein, Active Plumbing's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF #13), is DENIED. A Jury Trial ...