United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Kimberly A. Jolson, Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by
Defendant, NetJets Services, Inc. ("NetJets" or
"Defendant") (ECF No. 7), Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition (ECF No. 10), and Defendant's Reply in
Support. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons that follow,
Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
Stacie Jeffers ("Plaintiff), is a former employee of
Defendant, Netjets. an aviation services company. In January
2014, Plaintiff began working full-time as an Owner Services
Representative for Defendant. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No.
4.) Around July of 2015, Plaintiff became a Crew Support
Representative and remained in that position until her last
day in December of 2016. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.)
early December of 2016, Plaintiff alleges that she was paid
the incorrect amount of overtime pay. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.)
On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff approached two supervisors to
convey her belief that she was not paid the correct amount of
shift differential and overtime on a particular check. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 23.) One of the supervisors told Plaintiff to
contact the Payroll Department about her concern and on the
same day, Plaintiff emailed Payroll and expressed her belief
that her check was incorrect. (Am. Compl. ¶¶
25-26.) In the email, Plaintiff asserted that she had worked
twelve hours of overtime between November 20, 2016 and
November 25, 2016, stating, "I worked 12 hours of
overtime, 0 regular hours, and used 32 hours of vacation and
should have had 16 holiday hours for Thanksgiving and the day
after." (Def.'s Exhibit 2 at 1, ECF No.
7-2.) She further claimed that for the
week of November 27, 2016 through December 3, 2016 she worked
"40 regular hours and had 13 hours of overtime."
December 12, 2016, Defendant notified Plaintiff that
"she was suspended and being investigated for hanging up
on crew members . . . ." (Am. Compl. ¶¶
27-28.) On Wednesday, December 14, 2016, Defendant called
Plaintiff and told her that an investigation had been
conducted and that she was terminated for hanging up on crew
members. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30.)
December 20, 2016, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant
admitting that Defendant had not paid the proper shift
differential and that Defendant was going to remedy the
situation, (Am. Compl. ¶ 32.) On January 6, 2017,
Plaintiff received payment in the amount of $159.68 from
Defendant which, "was intended to compensate her for all
of 2016." (Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff contends
that $159.68 was insufficient to compensate her for 2016.
(Am. Compl. ¶33.)
alleges that she engaged in a protected activity under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §
201, etseq., when she informed Defendant that she
believed it failed to properly compensate her "the
correct amount of shift differential and failed to pay her
the required overtime pay as required by law." (Am.
Compl. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
retaliated by terminating her. (Am. Compl. ¶¶
moves to dismiss Plaintiffs FLSA claim, asserting that
Plaintiffs complaints did not constitute protected activity.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of
actions that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such an action will be
dismissed where "there is no law to support the claims
made" or where "the facts alleged are insufficient
to state a claim." Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Res.
Conservation Serv., Case No. 2:12-cv-299, 2013 WL
4517825, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2013) (citing Rauch v.
Day & Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 702 (6th Cir.
1978)). Federal Rule 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also BellAtl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To meet this
standard, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations to "state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570; Askcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(clarifying the plausibility standard articulated in
Twombly). A complaint will not "suffice if it
tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of further
factual enhancement." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). When considering
a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the complaint in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of
the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true.
Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
unlawful for an employer "to discharge or . ..
discriminate against any employee because such employee has
filed any complaint or instituted . .. any proceeding under
[the FLSA]." 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). An FLSA
retaliation claim ...