RODEHEAVER v. HOMEPRO REMODELERS LLC, 2:22-cv-01887

Background

Plaintiff Brenton Rodeheaver worked for HomePro Remodelers LLC as a non-exempt laborer from May–Aug 2022, paid $22/hour and allegedly promised 55 hours/week.
Plaintiff alleges supervisors routinely left early, reducing his actual work hours to ~40/week and causing unpaid waiting/preparation time at job sites ("Work Preparation Time Deduction Practice").
Plaintiff alleges promises by owner DiBenedetto to pay for travel time between/to job sites and reimburse gasoline ("Traveling Time" and "Gasoline Non‑Reimbursement Practices").
Plaintiff received a final paystub and a HomePro check showing $0 paid for a July 2022 pay period; defendants say a $400 loan offset explains the $0 check.
Claims in the Amended Complaint: FLSA and PMWA minimum‑wage violations, WPCL wage/reimbursement claims, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss; the court denied the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FLSA/PMWA: unpaid minimum wages for final pay period	Rodeheaver alleges ~20 hours unpaid in final pay period and $0 paycheck	Defendants say check reflects lawful deduction to satisfy $400 loan	Court found pleadings and attached paystub/check sufficient to plausibly allege minimum‑wage violation; claim may proceed
FLSA: compensability of travel time under Portal‑to‑Portal Act	Rodeheaver alleges DiBenedetto promised to pay for travel time between/to job sites	Defendants contend portal‑to‑portal exemptions would bar recovery for ordinary travel	Because plaintiff alleges an agreement to compensate travel, those hours are not barred by the Portal‑to‑Portal Act; claim survives pleading stage
FLSA & PMWA: compensability of preparatory/waiting time at job sites	Rodeheaver alleges he performed preparatory tasks while waiting and was required to be on site per policy	Defendants argue such preliminary/postliminary activities are exempt under Portal‑to‑Portal	Court held plaintiff alleged facts from which it is plausible these activities were integral/indispensable or otherwise compensable under the parties' agreement; claim may proceed
PMWA: travel and preparation time under state law	Rodeheaver contends travel and preparatory time were duties and thus "hours worked" under PMWA	Defendants dispute that such time was a compensable duty	Court accepted that plaintiff plausibly alleged travel and preparation were duties under the employment agreement; PMWA claims survive
WPCL: wage/reimbursement claims (gas, travel, preparation, final paycheck)	Rodeheaver alleges oral promises/contracts to reimburse gas and travel and that wages earned were unpaid	Defendants contend no enforceable contract or wages due as claimed (e.g., loan offset)	Court held WPCL provides a contractual remedy and that plaintiff plausibly alleged oral agreements and unpaid wages; WPCL claims may proceed
Breach of contract & unjust enrichment	Rodeheaver alleges formation of contract for 55 hrs/week, reimbursements, weekly pay; alleges Defendants were unjustly enriched by unpaid labor	Defendants move to dismiss for lack of sufficiently definite terms/consideration	Court found complaint plausibly alleges contract existence, definite terms, consideration, breach, and unjust enrichment; claims survive pleading stage

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (factual allegations must support reasonable inference of liability)
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2014) (test for whether preliminary/postliminary activities are "integral and indispensable")
De Ascencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) (definition of "workday" and portal‑to‑portal context)
In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (court may consider documents integral to the complaint on a motion to dismiss)
ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Communications, Inc., 155 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 1998) (elements for formation of an enforceable contract)
Antol v. Esposto, 100 F.3d 1111 (3d Cir. 1996) (WPCL provides a statutory remedy for breach of contractual wage obligations)
Helix Energy Sols. Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2023) (standards for determining exempt employee status under FLSA)