798 F.Supp.3d 778
S.D. Ohio2025Background
- Plaintiffs (130 opt-in PCAs, led by Kiara Lott) worked remotely answering inbound patient calls using employer‑provided laptops and a small set of applications (phone system, workflow system, client EMRs, directory, Teams, ADP timekeeping).
- Employer policies required PCAs to be “call‑ready” at shift start and after unpaid meal breaks; PCAs clocked in via ADP; employer applied quarter‑hour rounding and limited early clock‑ins/tardy windows with disciplinary rules.
- Plaintiffs allege unpaid off‑the‑clock time booting/logging in before shifts and after breaks, unpaid shutdown time after shifts, and an unlawful rounding practice; they assert FLSA and Ohio wage claims plus contract/unjust‑enrichment theories.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing pre/post shift activities are noncompensable (or de minimis), rounding policy is neutral, and handbooks disclaim any contract.
- The Court held the 130 opt‑ins are only conditional parties under Clark; it granted summary judgment in part and denied in part: dismissed claims tied to identified preliminary/postliminary activities, preserved claims for uncompensated use of integral/indispensable applications and for rounding, and dismissed the contract/unjust‑enrichment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the workday start/end for remote PCAs (boot‑up/login/shutdown)? | Workday begins when employee "engages the computer" (boot/login) and ends at shutdown. | Time spent booting/logging/shutting down is preliminary/postliminary and noncompensable unless otherwise integral. | Workday begins when employee opens/operates the first application integral and indispensable to answering calls (phone system, workflow, EMR, etc.); mere powering on, logging in, two‑factor, opening timekeeping or VPN, and shutdown/lock are preliminary/postliminary and noncompensable. |
| De minimis defense to pre/post shift time | Time added is not de minimis in the aggregate; employees seek recovery. | Any residual pre/post shift time is de minimis and administratively impracticable to record. | Premature to decide; de minimis requires factual estimation and balancing and defendant has not shown it applies on the current record. |
| Lawfulness of quarter‑hour rounding policy | Rounding, as applied, systematically undercompensated PCAs (statistical imbalance). | Policy is neutral on its face and in application. | Denied summary judgment on rounding: factual disputes exist about neutrality as applied given rounding plus clock‑in/tardiness/early‑clock limits; claim proceeds. |
| Breach of contract / unjust enrichment (offer letters, verbal promises) | Offer letters/verbal promises created contractual obligations to pay for all hours worked. | Signed handbooks disclaim any implied employment contract; no binding offer letters presented. | Grant summary judgment for defendants: handbook disclaimers control; contract/unjust‑enrichment claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Sols. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) (Portal‑to‑Portal Act and "integral and indispensable" test; postliminary security screening noncompensable)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (‘‘integral and indispensable’’ standard and discussion of waiting time)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (historical definition of compensable "workweek" time)
- Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Sols., LLC, 15 F.4th 1033 (10th Cir. 2021) (booting/launching software at physical call center held integral and compensable)
- Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC, 51 F.4th 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (physical call‑center employees’ boot‑up time compensable; court limited to onsite context)
- Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.–Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (rounding policy standards and DOL guidance on neutral application)