256 F. Supp. 3d 677
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Plaintiff Todd Sutka worked as a "Resident Engineer" for Yazaki North America and alleges Yazaki reclassified him from hourly (with 1.5x overtime after 40 hours) to an "exempt" salaried designation that results in no overtime pay for hours between 40 and 45 per week.
- Sutka filed a putative collective action under the FLSA for unpaid overtime and a Rule 23 class action under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (OPPA), seeking OPPA liquidated damages.
- Yazaki moved to partially dismiss only the OPPA claim, arguing OPPA’s liquidated-damages provision does not apply when the unpaid-wages claim is disputed.
- OPPA § 4113.15(B) provides liquidated damages where wages remain unpaid beyond payday unless a contest, court order, or dispute "accounting for nonpayment" exists.
- The Sixth Circuit’s decision in O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly (575 F.3d 567) interprets OPPA to bar liquidated damages when a dispute accounting for nonpayment exists; the district court here found O’Brien controlling.
- The court concluded Sutka’s complaint pleads a dispute (Yazaki’s classification defense) that accounts for nonpayment and therefore granted Yazaki’s partial motion to dismiss the OPPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPPA § 4113.15(B) allows liquidated damages when employer disputes that wages were owed | Sutka: Interpreting "dispute" to bar liquidated damages whenever a suit exists would nullify the statute; clause limiting damages applies only where there is no regular payday and thus doesn't bar damages here | Yazaki: § 4113.15(B) precludes liquidated damages if a dispute, contest, or court order accounts for nonpayment; classification dispute here bars OPPA damages | Court: Agrees with Yazaki; under O’Brien, a dispute accounting for nonpayment defeats OPPA liquidated damages; Sutka's claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (interpreting OPPA § 4113.15(B) to bar liquidated damages where a dispute accounts for nonpayment)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (U.S. 2016) (partially abrogated aspects of O’Brien on unrelated mootness issue; did not disturb O’Brien’s OPPA analysis)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard elaboration)