Clark v. Shop24 Global, LLC
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5496
S.D. Ohio2015Background
- Clark was hired in 2009 as a technician/service manager for Shop24 USA (later Shop24 Global after a 2010 asset sale); he worked long, variable weeks (averaging ~70 hours) and was salaried.
- His duties included installing, repairing and maintaining vending machines, training and supervising technicians, procuring/stocking parts (significant inventory), creating manuals, and handling some customer service and budgeting tasks.
- Clark questioned his exempt classification and overtime pay beginning in 2009 and again in 2012; he filed this FLSA suit on September 4, 2012 and was terminated three weeks later after coworkers reported statements he made at a dinner.
- Claims: (1) FLSA unpaid overtime (misclassification), (2) FLSA retaliation, (3) Ohio unpaid overtime (parallel to FLSA), (4) Ohio Constitution/recordkeeping violation; defendants also moved on calculation method (fluctuating workweek), employer status of RDO Equipment, and successor liability of Shop24 Global for pre-acquisition claims.
- Court denied plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on misclassification and state claims, granted summary judgment for RDO Equipment (not an employer), denied summary judgment for Shop24 Global on successor liability issue, and granted summary judgment for defendants on the FLSA retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark was misclassified as exempt (admin or executive exemptions) | Clark: primary duties were manual/blue-collar repair work; exemptions do not apply | Defendants: Clark performed substantial non‑manual/management‑related work (parts inventory, budgeting, hiring/training, vendor selection) and exercised discretion | Genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment denied to Clark on classification |
| If misclassified, whether damages should be calculated by fluctuating workweek (FWW) | Clark: FWW not applicable because conditions (esp. extra premium pay) not satisfied | Defendants: Missel/FWW applies because salary compensated fluctuating hours and handbook/course of conduct supports fixed‑salary understanding | FWW disputed; summary judgment denied to defendants because factual issues (mutual understanding, prior protests/requests) remain |
| Whether termination was retaliatory under FLSA | Clark: filing suit and prior complaints were protected, firing 3 weeks after filing establishes causation and pretext | Defendants: Termination was for legitimate reason — insubordinate/threatening statements at dinner; no causal link to protected conduct | Court found close temporal proximity supports prima facie causation but plaintiff failed to show pretext; summary judgment for defendants on retaliation |
| Whether RDO Equipment Co. was an "employer" under FLSA/Ohio law | Clark: RDO (through Setness) exercised control over payments, payroll processing, approvals and thus was an employer | Defendants: RDO’s ties were tenuous; no hiring/firing authority or substantial control over terms and conditions | As a matter of law RDO was not an employer; summary judgment granted for RDO |
| Whether Shop24 Global is successor liable for Shop24 USA’s pre‑acquisition overtime | Clark: federal successor‑liability doctrine applies; continuity of operations and insolvency of predecessor make imposition equitable | Defendants: asset purchase agreement disclaimed liabilities and Shop24 Global cannot be liable for pre‑acquisition obligations | Court denied defendants’ summary judgment on successor liability; factual issues (continuity, ability of predecessor to provide relief, notice) remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (U.S.) (approved use of the fluctuating workweek for fixed weekly wage with variable hours)
- Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2002) (field service engineer case illustrating fact‑intensive administrative exemption analysis)
- Urnikis‑Negro v. Am. Family Prop. Servs., 616 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying Missel to calculate regular rate under FWW)
- Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussing Missel/FWW application and employee objection to exempt reclassification)
- Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2006) (factors for successor liability balancing test)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for retaliation/discrimination claims)