{"id":2534,"date":"2025-11-07T17:43:29","date_gmt":"2025-11-07T21:43:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2534"},"modified":"2025-11-07T17:43:29","modified_gmt":"2025-11-07T21:43:29","slug":"ohio-federal-court-applies-sixth-circuits-heightened-standard-to-deny-certification-of-overtime-claims-for-alleged-unpaid-pre-shift-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/11\/07\/ohio-federal-court-applies-sixth-circuits-heightened-standard-to-deny-certification-of-overtime-claims-for-alleged-unpaid-pre-shift-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Federal Court Applies Sixth Circuit\u2019s Heightened Standard To Deny Certification Of Overtime Claims For Alleged Unpaid Pre-Shift Work"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Arble v. East Ohio Gas Company, et al., No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2025), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio denied the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs based on application of the Sixth Circuit\u2019s \u201cstrong likelihood\u201d standard for FLSA certification. As a result of the court\u2019s ruling, the lawsuit will proceed based on the claims of only three plaintiffs. The decision is essential reading for defendants in the Sixth Circuit seeking to defeat a motion for certification of FLSA claims.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 26, 2024, on behalf of a putative class and collective action of call center employees against an energy company that provides services throughout Ohio and the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff contended that the defendant had an unlawful practice of failing to pay wages to call center employees for time spent logging on and booting up their computer systems. She alleged that as a result of \u201coff the clock\u201d work prior to the start time of the shift, she and other call center workers worked in excess of 40 per workweek without receiving overtime pay. Plaintiff asserted claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two other call center employees filed consent forms to become opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs for purposes of their collective action per the FLSA.  Defendants responded in opposition on April 22, 2025. The Court denied the motion as moot after granting Plaintiff\u2019s separate motion to amend the complaint to add a party.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for court-facilitated notice to a putative nationwide collective action of call center workers. Defendants responded in opposition on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs did not file a reply in further support of the motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Ohio law no longer permits plaintiffs to pursue class action (opt-out) claims for unpaid overtime under Ohio state law, the Plaintiffs\u2019 motion addressed only the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. See<\/em> Ohio Rev. Code 4111.10(C).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court explained the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims under the pivotal decision of the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC<\/em>, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Clark<\/em>, the Sixth Circuit abandoned the familiar two-step framework for conditional certification under the FLSA. In its place, the Sixth Circuit announced a new standard for facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b) of the FLSA. Under the new standard, plaintiffs must demonstrate a \u201cstrong likelihood\u201d that they are similarly situated to others with a showing \u201cgreater than the one necessary to create a genuine issue of material fact, but less than the one necessary to show a preponderance.\u201d See Clark<\/em>, 68 F.4th at 1010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upon application of the Clark<\/em> standard, the Court concluded Plaintiffs fell far short of meeting their evidentiary burden to receive court-facilitated notice of their claims to others. The Court highlighted three primary deficiencies in Plaintiffs\u2019 motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the Court found the Plaintiffs\u2019 sworn declarations insufficient to show similarity to any other call center workers.  The declarations failed to identify any other call center workers by name, failed to state any dates when Plaintiffs allegedly saw others performing pre-shift work, failed to explain how Plaintiffs knew that others experienced violations of the FLSA, and failed to connect Plaintiffs\u2019 observations to any broader set of call center workers employed by Defendants inside or outside Ohio.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, the Court roundly rejected Plaintiffs\u2019 reading of an employee handbook policy applicable to call center workers. Plaintiffs contended that a policy stating that workers must be on time and available to start work at the beginning of their shift supported their claims of widespread \u201coff the clock\u201d work in violation of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that a mere requirement for employees to be on time for work did not run afoul of the FLSA. Therefore, nothing on the face of the policy warranted court-supervised notice, nor did Plaintiffs explain how the policy proves a violation as to all potential opt-in plaintiffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court found no basis in the record to send notice to the membership of a nationwide collective action. Plaintiffs, who each worked in Ohio, presented no evidence of how Defendants staffed or managed any call center outside of Ohio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court reasoned that absent evidence linking Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations to other call center workers, facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs \u201cwould amount to claim solicitation that the Court declines to undertake.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having concluded that no basis existed to expand the scope of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs under the Clark <\/em>standard, the Court ordered that the case would proceed based on the claims of three Plaintiffs alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Defendants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In FLSA collective action litigation, the disposition of a motion for notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs is a central inflection point. The Court\u2019s ruling in Arble<\/em> illustrates the opportunity afforded to defendants in the wake of Clark<\/em> to shrink the scope of an FLSA lawsuit by dissecting the purported evidence of similarity between the named plaintiff and other employees. Where plaintiffs rely on vague and conclusory allegations of widespread unlawful pay practices, defendants have an opportunity to defeat the plaintiffs\u2019 efforts to expand the universe of party plaintiffs in the case, and thereby gain significant leverage in the lawsuit. Corporate counsel defending similar FLSA claims of unpaid overtime on behalf of a putative collective action ought to take note of the Court\u2019s reasoning in Arble <\/em>when preparing their defense strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Northern District of Ohio\u2019s ruling in Arble <\/em>reflects, the Sixth Circuit\u2019s \u201cstrong likelihood\u201d standard under Clark<\/em> poses a formidable hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome to obtain court-sanctioned notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown Duane Morris Takeaways: In Arble v. East Ohio Gas Company, et al., No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2025), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio denied the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs based on application of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ohio Federal Court Applies Sixth Circuit\u2019s Heightened Standard To Deny Certification Of Overtime Claims For Alleged Unpaid Pre-Shift Work”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,87],"class_list":["post-2534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":87,"user_id":645,"is_guest":0,"slug":"krbrown","display_name":"Kathryn R. Brown","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/05\/brownkathryn-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2534\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2534"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}