Haight v. Cheap Escape Co.
2014 Ohio 2447
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs John Haight and Christopher Pence were outside salespersons for Cheap Escape Company and were paid primarily by commission; they allege they received less than Ohio’s minimum wage under Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution.
- Section 34a (the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Amendment) provides that terms like “employee” have the same meanings as under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and states that "only the exemptions set forth in this section shall apply."
- Shortly after Section 34a’s adoption, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 4111.14 to implement Section 34a and included a statutory definition of “employee” that excludes persons who are exempt from federal minimum-wage requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 213 (e.g., outside salespersons).
- Plaintiffs sued the company owners claiming entitlement to Ohio minimum wages under Section 34a and challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 4111.14(B)(1)’s narrower definition of "employee."
- The trial court upheld R.C. 4111.14(B)(1); the court of appeals reversed, holding the statute conflicts with Section 34a and is therefore invalid as an impermissible restriction of the constitutional provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) impermissibly narrows the constitutional definition of "employee" in Ohio Const. Art. II, § 34a | Haight: § 34a adopts the FLSA’s broad definition of "employee" (29 U.S.C. § 203) and bars any legislative narrowing; statutory grafting of FLSA § 213 exemptions into the definition unlawfully restricts coverage | Cheap Escape: § 34a refers to the FLSA’s meanings generally (plural), so implementing legislation may apply the FLSA’s exemptions and exemptions effectively limit coverage | Court of appeals: R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) narrows the § 34a/FLSA definition by excluding categories exempt from federal minimum-wage rules and thus conflicts with § 34a; statute invalid as applied to Section 34a implementation |
| Whether FLSA exemptions (29 U.S.C. § 213) can be incorporated into the Ohio definition of "employee" for purposes of Section 34a | Haight: § 213 exemptions remove categories from federal wage protections but not from the FLSA definition of "employee," and § 34a forbids additional restrictions beyond those in the amendment | Cheap Escape: The FLSA must be read as a whole; exemptions and exclusions inform the practical scope of who is covered under § 34a | Held: Exemptions under § 213 are not part of the § 203 definition; incorporating § 213 into R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) improperly narrows § 34a’s coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (stressing high presumption of constitutionality and standard for declaring statutes unconstitutional)
- State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (establishing that a statute must be shown to be clearly incompatible with the Constitution)
- N. Olmsted v. N. Olmsted Land Holdings, Ltd., 137 Ohio App.3d 1 (discussing presumption of validity and reluctance to declare laws unconstitutional)
- Ellington v. East Cleveland, 689 F.2d 549 (6th Cir.) (addressed FLSA "legislative employee" exclusion but did not analyze effect of § 213 exemptions)
- Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35 (discussing presumption of constitutionality and burden on challenger)