Plaintiff’s Complaint — Tenola Oliver v. RELX Inc. d/b/a LexisNexis (Dkt. 1, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

Tenola Oliver filed this complaint on April 18, 2018 against RELX Inc. d/b/a LexisNexis in the Southern District of Ohio (Case 3:18-cv-00127-TMR), on behalf of Oliver and other telephonic account executives. It brings a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, R.C. 4111.03. The complaint alleges that LexisNexis classified its telephonic account executives as exempt, required them to report 40 hours per week although they frequently worked 50 to 60 hours, and paid no overtime. Oliver worked at the Miamisburg, Ohio location between approximately September 2014 and September 2016, and both classes cover account executives employed between April 18, 2015 and the present, at least 100 persons. The complaint includes a jury demand.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

TENOLA OLIVER ) CASE NO.
8331 Landmark Court Apt. 207 )
West Chester, Ohio 45069 ) JUDGE
)
on behalf of herself and all others similarly )
situated, )
) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, )
) (Jury Demand Endorsed Herein)
vs. )
)
RELX INC. D/B/A LEXISNEXIS )
c/o Statutory Agent CT Corporation )
System )
4400 Easton Commons Way Suite 125 )
Columbus, OH 43219 )
)
Defendant. )

Now comes Plaintiff Tenola Oliver, by and through counsel, and for her Complaint

against RELX Inc. d/b/a LexisNexis (“LexisNexis”), states and alleges the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a “collective action” instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s

practices and policies of misclassifying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as

“exempt”, and not paying them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their

regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.SC. 201-219, as well as a “class action” pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”),

R.C. 4111.03.
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331

and 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s OMFWSA claims pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because the claims are so related to the FLSA claims as to form part of the same

case or controversy.

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendant maintains an

office located at 9443 N. Springboro Pike, conducts business throughout this District and Division,

and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District

and Division.

PARTIES

5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and a

resident of Butler County, Ohio.

6. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of 29

U.S.C. § 203(e) and O.R.C. § 4111.03(D)(3).

7. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was a foreign corporation, organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, licensed to conduct business in the State of

Ohio.

8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 29

U.S.C. § 203(d) and O.R.C. § 4111.03(D)(2).

9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 29

U.S.C. § 203(r).

2
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 3

10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was an enterprise engaged in commerce or

in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

11. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee engaged in commerce or in

the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207.

12. As a regular and recurrent part of Plaintiffs’ employment duties, they processed

sales transactions and services by regularly using instrumentalities of interstate commerce in their

work. Plaintiffs received and made telephone calls from Defendant’s customers and potential

customers using telephones, computers, and headsets, which also traveled in interstate commerce.

13. Written consents to join this action as to Count One, as and when executed by other

individual plaintiffs, will be filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Defendant is a corporation that provides legal, regulatory, and business information

and analytics to its customers.

15. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between approximately September 2014 and

September 2016 at Defendant’s Miamisburg, Ohio location.

16. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were employed by Defendant as

telephonic account executives in locations throughout the United States, including Ohio, and they

were responsible for performing inside sales of Defendant’s products.

17. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic

account executives were classified by Defendant as “exempt” from the FLSA and OMFWSA’s

overtime requirements and were paid a salary wage.

18. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives were also paid

commissions on sales they made to customers.

3
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 4

19. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives earned less in

commissions than their salary wages.

20. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives did not perform

sales work outside of LexisNexis’ place of business.

21. If Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives worked less

than 40 hours per week, their pay was docked.

22. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives frequently

worked over 40 hours per week, but were not paid overtime compensation for the hours worked

over 40 each workweek.

(Failure to Keep Accurate Records)

23. Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the hours worked by

Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives.

24. Defendant required Plaintiff and other similarly-situated telephonic account

executives to report that they worked 8 hours per day, and 40 hours per week, despite the fact that

they frequently worked 50 to 60 hours per week.

25. As a result of Defendant’s record keeping practices, the work performed by Plaintiff

and other similarly-situated telephonic account executives is unrecorded in Defendant’s time and

earnings records.

(Defendant Willfully Violated the FLSA)

26. Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of

the FLSA.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

4
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 5

§ 216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be

adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

28. The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right

to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff is herself a

member, is composed of and defined as follows:

All former and current telephonic account executives employed by
Defendant between April 18, 2015 and the present.

29. Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon

information and belief, avers that it consists of at least 100 persons.

30. This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

216(b) as to claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and

costs under the FLSA. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are

similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages. Plaintiff

is representative of those other employees and is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her

own in bringing this action.

31. These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily

identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records. These individuals may readily be notified of this

action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively

adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees

and costs under the FLSA.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

32. Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)

on behalf of herself and all other members of the class (“the Ohio Class”) defined as:

5
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 6

All former and current telephonic account executives employed by
Defendant between April 18, 2015 and the present.

33. The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.

Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon

information and belief, avers that it consists of at least 100 persons.

34. There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not

limited to the following:

(a) whether Defendant misclassified its telephonic account
executives as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA
and OMFWSA; and

(b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff
Tenola Oliver and other members of the Ohio class for Defendant’s
violation of O.R.C. §§ 4111.03 and 4111.10.

35. The claims of named Plaintiff Tenola Oliver are typical of the claims of other

members of the Ohio Class. Named Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of

conduct by Defendant, and are based on the same legal theories, as the claims of other Ohio Class

members.

36. Named Plaintiff Tenola Oliver will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

Ohio Class. Her interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of

other Ohio Class members. The named Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class

action wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in

this case.

37. The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over

any questions affecting only individual members. The primary questions that will determine

Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the Ohio Class as a whole,

and predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.

6
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 7

38. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. Requiring Ohio Class members to pursue their claims

individually would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’

fees, and demands on court resources. Many class members’ claims are sufficiently small that

they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims

individually. Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be

adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.

COUNT ONE
(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)
39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten

herein.

40. Defendant’s practice and policy of misclassifying Plaintiff and other similarly-

situated employees as exempt violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

41. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated

employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for

the hours they worked over 40 each workweek violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

42. By designating Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as “exempt,” and

by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees overtime compensation,

Defendant willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.

43. As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly-

situated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant

to the FLSA.

COUNT TWO
(Violations of Ohio Revised Code § 4111.03)

7
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 8

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten

herein.

45. Defendant’s practice and policy of misclassifying Plaintiff and other similarly-

situated employees as exempt violated the OMFWSA, O.R.C. § 4111.03.

46. Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated

employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for

the hours they worked over 40 each workweek violated the OMFWSA, O.R.C. § 4111.03.

47. By designating Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as “exempt,” and

by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees overtime compensation,

Defendant willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the OMFWSA.

48. As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly-

situated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant

to the OMFWSA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, collectively pray that this

Honorable Court:

A. Issue an order permitting this litigation to proceed as a collective action, and

certifying the Ohio Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3);

B. Order prompt notice, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to all class members that this

litigation is pending and that they have the right to “opt in” to this litigation;

C. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents actual damages for unpaid wages;

D. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents liquidated damages equal in amount to

the unpaid wages found due to Plaintiff and the class;

8
Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/18/18 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 9

E. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents pre- and post-judgment interest at the

statutory rate;

F. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents attorneys’ fees, costs, and

disbursements; and

G. Award Plaintiff and the class she represents further and additional relief as this

Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lori M. Griffin
Lori M. Griffin (0085241)
Anthony J. Lazzaro (0077962)
Chastity L. Christy (0076977)
The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Phone: 216-696-5000
Facsimile: 216-696-7005
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@ lazzarolawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all eligible claims and issues.

/s/ Lori M. Griffin
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff

File and source

File: 1.pdf
Size: 202,963 bytes
SHA-256: fca5eab90fc5fe03811a47b4f2c393227ee252137f8d3df24a47525e8904ab46
Our copy: 1.pdf
Original: No public link identified.