United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
EVANGELITA MONTANEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff,
v.
VOSS INDUSTRIES, LLC., ET AL., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter is before the Court on the Motions to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations by Defendant
Voss Industries, LLC., (ECF # 19) and Defendant Technical
Search Consultants, Inc. (ECF # 20). For the following
reasons, the Court denies Defendants' Motions.
Factual
Allegations
According
to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”), Plaintiff was employed as a material
handler between December 2018 and March 2018 with Defendant
Voss Industries, LLC. (“Voss”), a manufacturer of
specialized band clamps, V-band couplings, flanges, ducting
components and other fabricated products. Defendant Technical
Search Consultants, Inc. (“TSC”) is a temporary
third-party staffing agency that supplies employees to Voss.
Plaintiff alleges both Voss and TSC are joint employers of
Plaintiff and the putative class. Putative class members
include material handlers, engineering assistants and
computer numerically controlled (“CNC”)
operators. According to Plaintiff, both Defendants had the
authority to hire, fire and discipline Plaintiff and the
putative class members and maintained employment, time and
pay records of the putative class. Plaintiff further alleges
Defendants controlled the manner in which Plaintiff and the
putative class performed their work, the hours, location and
how they performed their work and established policies and
rules to be followed. Defendants also controlled the manner
in which Plaintiff and the putative class were paid including
the rate, method and time they were paid.
Plaintiff
alleges Defendants failed to pay for work performed before
the scheduled start and stop times and failed to pay for
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act (“OMFWSA”).
Plaintiff
brings these claims as a collective action under the FLSA and
as a class action under the OMFWSA. Plaintiff asserts her
FLSA claims collectively on behalf of eligible employees
defined as:
All former and current manufacturing employees of Voss
Industries, LLC and/or Technical Search Consultants Inc. at
any and all time between June 18, 2015 and the present.
Plaintiff's
class action claim is brought on behalf of a class of Ohio
employees defined as:
All former and current manufacturing employees of Voss
Industries, LLC and/or Technical Search Consultants Inc. in
the State of Ohio at any and all time between June 18, 2015
and the present.
According
to Voss, the FAC should be dismissed because it fails to
allege sufficient facts to render her claims plausible.
Should the Court consider the facts as alleged sufficient to
support her claims, Voss asks the Court to strike the class
claims because the First Amended Complaint allegations do not
support class certification.
Voss
contends that Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting her
conclusory statement that she was not paid overtime for
pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock work and fails to
allege Defendants knew or should have known about the unpaid
off-the-clock work. They further contend that Plaintiff fails
to assert any factual allegations supporting her claim that
Defendants had a policy or practice of requiring employees
perform off-the-clock work and completely fails to assert any
facts regarding her own job duties or those of the putative
class. Lastly, Defendants ask the Court to strike
Plaintiff's class claims as the nature of the claims
themselves do not support Fed.R.Civ.P. 23's commonality,
typicality, predominance and superiority requirements. The
FAC fails to assert a common unlawful practice by Defendants
that violates the FLSA and OMEFWSA and applied to the
different job duties of the putative class. Furthermore, the
evidence of damages will not be common to the class but will
instead be highly individualized.
TSC
argues the FAC should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to
allege sufficient facts to plausibly show TSC was a joint
employer of Plaintiff and the putative class. As a temporary
employee staffer, TSC did not control relevant aspects of
Plaintiff's and the putative class's work.
Plaintiff's threadbare allegations are conclusory in
nature and cannot support her allegation that TSC was a joint
employer. None of the consent forms name TSC as an employer
and Plaintiff does not allege TSC had actual or constructive
knowledge that Plaintiff and the putative class members were
not paid overtime wages.
TSC
further contends the above defenses apply equally in favor of
striking Plaintiff's class claims against TSC. TSC
further adopts Voss's arguments for striking the class
claims and asserts that the class claims be stricken for
failing to allege that all members of the putative class were
provided to Voss by TSC.
Plaintiff
asserts she provided factual allegations sufficient to meet
the federal pleading standard. She alleges facts sufficient
to show that she worked more that 40 hours a week and was not
paid for the overtime. She further alleges Defendants knew of
the hours worked and, per Defendants policy or practices, ...