Given v. Central Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC
2:17-cv-00925
S.D. OhioDec 12, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Bobbi Jo Given worked for Defendant Central Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC (Hollywood Casino) as Revenue Audit Supervisor from Feb. 6, 2016 to Nov. 28, 2016 (previously a Table Games Supervisor/Trainer); salary $48,000/year (~$923/week).
- Given was initially classified as exempt under the FLSA; COGV later reclassified her as non-exempt on Nov. 28, 2016 after an internal FLSA audit driven by proposed DOL changes; she seeks overtime for the Feb–Nov 2016 period.
- Given’s duties included assigning and directing auditors, participating in hiring and training, handling some complaints and discipline, preparing reports, and performing daily operational tasks; she reported to Revenue Audit Manager Jennifer Rivera.
- COGV moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Given’s opposition was late, (2) she met the executive exemption (so no overtime), and (3) Ohio claims rise or fall with the FLSA claim.
- The Court denied summary judgment: it found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether management was Given’s “primary duty” (an element of the executive exemption), and therefore denied dismissal of the FLSA and related Ohio claims. Magistrate judge had already excused a one-day filing delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Response | May 16 filing should be accepted | Response filed after deadline; should be disregarded | Denied as moot — magistrate granted retroactive timeliness; response deemed timely |
| Executive-exemption: primary-duty-of-management | Given lacked primary managerial duties; Rivera exercised ultimate control; Given’s tasks were largely non-managerial | Given performed managerial duties (directed auditors, handled hiring input, discipline, scheduling, training contributions) and met exemption | Genuine dispute of material fact as to whether management was Given’s primary duty; summary judgment denied |
| Supervision of two or more employees | Given contends supervision was limited / deferential | COGV points to evidence Given supervised two+ FTEs and assigned work | Requirement satisfied (she supervised two or more), but extent of supervision relevant to primary-duty inquiry — disputed |
| Hiring/firing "particular weight" & authority | Given lacked formal hiring/firing power | Given participated significantly in hiring; on at least one occasion hired independently; her recommendations carried weight | Court found sufficient evidence that Given had significant input (and at least once exercised hiring), satisfying the "particular weight" prong for purposes of summary judgment analysis |
| State-law (Ohio) wage claims | Mirror FLSA claim; survive if FLSA claim survives | If FLSA claim fails, Ohio claims fail too | Because FLSA claims survive summary judgment, Ohio claims also survive; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment and genuine-issue inquiry)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir.) (2007) (employer bears burden to prove FLSA exemption by clear and affirmative evidence)
- Ale v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 269 F.3d 680 (6th Cir. 2001) (exemption analysis looks to actual duties performed, not job description)
- Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2009) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995) (a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC, 823 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2016) (FLSA and Ohio overtime requirements align)
- Mosquera v. MTI Retreading Co., [citation="745 F. App'x 568"] (6th Cir. 2018) (discussion of executive exemption)