United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
KATHRYN E. HUTCHINSON, Plaintiff,
HONEYMOON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND DECISION (RESOLVING DOC. 11)
R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants, Honeymoon Corporation (at times
“the Honeymoon”) and Stephen Rector. Docs. 11.
Defendants have moved for judgment as a matter of law on the
second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Kathryn E.
Hutchinson. The Court finds that no genuine issues of
material fact exist as to Plaintiff's federal claims. As
such, for the following reasons, Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, and their motion for summary
judgment on Plaintiff's federal claims is GRANTED . The
Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
state-law claims and thus, the remaining claims are DISMISSED
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Stephen Rector owns Defendant Honeymoon Corporation, which
operates as a local diner doing business as the Honeymoon
Grille. The restaurant opened for business in late August of
2013. Doc. 11-1. That same month, the Honeymoon Grille hired
Plaintiff Kathryn Hutchinson to work as a server. Doc. 9. She
also worked as a food runner and supervisor until her
employment was terminated in late October 2015. Doc. 11-1.
second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she worked
more than 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fair Standards
Act. Doc. 5. She also asserts a claim for retaliation after
Defendants discussed filing counterclaims. Doc. 5. Defendants
later filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a
motion for summary judgment. Defendants then supplemented
their motion, and Hutchinson filed her brief and opposition.
The matter is now ripe for a decision by this Court.
LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW
seeking summary judgment must show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A fact is material if it is one that might affect the
outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Determination of whether a factual issue is
“genuine” requires consideration of the
applicable evidentiary burdens. Id. At 252. Further,
on summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from
underlying facts must be viewed “in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion.” U.S.
v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). The pivotal
question in deciding a motion for summary judgment is whether
a reasonable fact finder could make a finding in
favor of either party. See Anderson 477 U.S. at 250
(“The inquiry performed is 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
initial burden of showing the absence of any “genuine
issue” belongs to the moving party. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving
party has satisfied its burden of proof, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party may not
simply rely on its pleadings, but must “produce
evidence that results in a conflict of material fact to be
resolved by a jury” or other fact-finder at trial.
Cox v. Kentucky Dep't of Transp., 53 F.3d 146,
150 (6th Cir. 1995). A party opposing summary
judgment must show that there are facts genuinely in dispute
and must do so by citing to the record. Fed.R.Civ.P.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) passed by Congress in
1938, is a comprehensive remedial scheme requiring a minimum
wage and limiting the maximum number of hours worked. The
FLSA prohibits employers from employing any worker for a work
week longer than forty hours unless the employee receives
compensation for employment in excess of forty hours. 29
U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Such compensation must be at a rate
not less than one and one half times the regular rate at
which the employee is employed. Id.
* * *
There are essentially two ways in which employees gain
protection under the FLSA. First, employees may be employed
in an enterprise engaged in commerce or the production of
goods for commerce and thus enjoy “enterprise
coverage.” Second, employees may themselves be engaged
in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,
enjoying “individual” coverage.
Kowalski v. Kowalski Heat Treating, Co., 920 F.Supp.
799, 802-803 (N.D. Ohio 1996); 29 U.S.C. §207(a).
Commerce is defined as “trade, commerce,
transportation, transmission, or communication among the
several States or between any State and any place outside
thereof.” 29 U.S.C. §203(b); Williams v. Hooah
Sec. Services, LLC, 729 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1013 (W.D. Tenn.
recover unpaid overtime, the burden rests first on the
plaintiff to prove the following factors by a preponderance
of the evidence: 1) there exists an employer-employee
relationship; 2) there was an engagement in activities within
coverage of the FLSA; and 3) the defendant failed to pay the
plaintiff the overtime pay required by law.
Kowalski, 920 F.Supp. at 802-83. “Once the
plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to
the employer to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
one of the exemptions afforded by Section 213 of the FLSA
applies to the employment in question.” Id.,
citing 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.
qualify under the FLSA's enterprise coverage, the
enterprise must have:
employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods
for commerce, or [have] employees handling, selling, or
otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved
in or produced for commerce by any person; and ... [must have
an] annual volume ...