Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
December 1, 2017, Decided; December 1, 2017, Filed
Case No.: 2:15-cv-3065
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon several motions: (1) Defendant Tire Discounters, Inc.'s ("Tire Discounters") Motion to Decertify the Conditional Collective Action ("Motion to Decertify") (Doc. 68); (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) ("Motion for Class Certification") (Doc. 69); (3) Tire Discounters' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion for Summary Judgment") (Doc. 79); (4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Method of Calculating Damages ("Motion for Partial Summary Judgment") (Doc. 80); and (5) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to [*2] File a Supplemental Brief in support of their positions on the Motion to Decertify and the Motion for Class Certification ("Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief") (Doc. 95). All five motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the following reasons,
(1) Tire Discounters' Motion to Decertify is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is DENIED;
(3) Tire Discounters' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;
(4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and
(5) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Tire Discounters' classification of its Service Manager position as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4111, et seq. ("OMWA"). Named Plaintiffs Justin Lindsey and Matthew Titus worked as Service Managers ("SMs") at various Tire Discounters locations for all or part of the period of December 8, 2012 to October 31, 2016. (Doc. 1, Compl.). Plaintiffs claim that Tire Discounters improperly classified them, and all other SMs employed by Tire Discounters around the country during [*3] this time period, as exempt under the executive exemption provided by 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. (Id.).
Tire Discounters is a chain with over 100 stores throughout Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Indiana. (Doc. 68-1, Ward Aff. ¶ 3). For its first several decades in business, Tire Discounters focused primarily on retail tire sales and simple services such as changing and rotating tires. (Id. ¶ 8). During this period, each Tire Discounters location was staffed with a General Manager ("GM") who typically oversaw an Assistant Manager ("AM") and several Tire Technicians and Service Technicians. The AM position was not classified by Tire Discounters as exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. (Doc. 77-1, Ward Dep. at 8).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197996 *; 2017 WL 5972104
JUSTIN LINDSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIRE DISCOUNTERS, INC., Defendant.
Prior History: Lindsey v. Tire Discounters, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68235 (S.D. Ohio, May 3, 2017)
Tire, employees, exemption, similarly situated, Plaintiffs', declarants, recommendations, hiring, class certification, discipline, job duties, collective action, calculating, Decertify, interviewing, overtime, summary judgment, salary, job description, primary duty, deponents, promotion, decertification, partial summary judgment, scheduling, directing, training, summary judgment motion, regular, overtime wages
Civil Procedure, Pleading & Practice, Motion Practice, Opposing Memoranda, Supporting Memoranda, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Initial Burden of Persuasion, Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Remedies, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Decertification, Class Members, Named Members, Scope & Definitions, Exemptions, Executives & Professionals, Exemptions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Prerequisites for Class Action, Predominance, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Statutory Application, Typicality, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Evidentiary Considerations, Scintilla Rule, Overtime & Work Periods, Judgments, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Partial Summary Judgment, Wage Payments, Regular Rate