{"id":3305,"date":"2026-10-01T13:41:24","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T17:41:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3305"},"modified":"2026-10-01T13:41:25","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T17:41:25","slug":"ohio-federal-court-grants-conditional-certification-of-a-wide-collective-action-against-the-cleveland-clinic-foundation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/10\/01\/ohio-federal-court-grants-conditional-certification-of-a-wide-collective-action-against-the-cleveland-clinic-foundation\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Federal Court Grants Conditional Certification Of A Wide Collective Action Against The Cleveland Clinic Foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

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

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/strong> On September 24, 2026, Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted <\/a>Plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification of a proposed collective of workers alleging that time-rounding practices resulted in overtime violations in Garner v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Case No. 23-CV-2258 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2026).\u00a0 Judge Boyko found that Plaintiff had met her burden to show a strong likelihood that workers were similarly situated because she provided testimony, declarations, and an expert opinion that demonstrated that workers across multiple positions and facilities were all subject to the same non-neutral rounding policy. The opinion should be required reading for companies defending wage & hour claims in courts within the Sixth Circuit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Plaintiff Deborah Garner brought a putative class and collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated on November 21, 2023.  Plaintiff, a patient registrar and patient access specialist employed by Defendant, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (\u201cCCF\u201d), alleged that CCF failed to pay non-exempt employees overtime at the statutory rate for all hours worked over forty, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) as well as Ohio\u2019s wage and hour laws.  Plaintiff additionally claimed that CCF failed to pay all wages owed to workers due to improper rounding and\/or editing of hours worked in Defendant\u2019s timekeeping software, and failed to keep accurate time records.  Id.<\/em> at 1-2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as well as a motion asking the Court to facilitate notice to other similarly-situated potential plaintiffs, and the Court granted the motion after striking Plaintiff\u2019s class claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Judge Boyko granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion to facilitate notice to putative collective members on determining that there was a strong likelihood that the proposed collective members are similarly situated because the plaintiffs had met their burden to show that non-exempt hourly employees were all subject to the same rounding policies.  Id.<\/em> at 1.  Plaintiffs provided declarations of 5 opt-in plaintiffs, deposition testimony, and an expert opinion regarding CCF\u2019s rounding policies and practices. Id.<\/em> at 1-2. Plaintiff\u2019s expert testified that CCF\u2019s \u201crounding practices worked against the employees nearly 80 percent of the time.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 20. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendant argued that the scope of the proposed class and the variety of positions involved gave rise to individualized questions and issues, but the Court was unconvinced. Id<\/em>. The Court determined that this evidence was enough to have \u201cshown the rounding practice applied broadly to all the non-exempt employees\u201d and was in line with the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s express determination that representative evidence in collective actions is permissible. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Court, citing to Plaintiff\u2019s evidence, which showed that about 17% of employees suffered no injury, concluded that they lacked standing and were not similarly situated because they could claim no injury under the FLSA.  Id.<\/em> at 21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants further argued that approximately 4.5% of CCF\u2019s non-exempt hourly employees were subject to \u201cflex rounding\u201d or \u201cquarter rounding\u201d policies and were therefore not similarly situated because they were not subject to the general rounding policy at issue. The Court found that Defendant\u2019s argument only supported Plaintiff\u2019s argument that CCF had a system-wide rounding policy, and that it was not applied to \u201cselect employees or departments.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 22.  The Court concluded that the evidence showed \u201ca consistent, systemwide policy of rounding and that rounding heavily favored Defendant,\u201d and therefore that Plaintiffs met their burden to show the putative collective was similarly situated, and granted Garner\u2019s motion for a Court-facilitated notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of the opinion in Garner<\/em>, companies with a workforce of non-exempt employees are well-advised to take stock of their timekeeping policies and practices, particularly when they operate multiple facilities and utilize timekeeping systems with rounding features.  Federal courts in the Sixth Circuit scrutinize any such policies to determine whether putative collective action members are subject to the same practices, and the likelihood of plaintiffs meeting the \u201cstrong likelihood\u201d standard is greater when such policies are generally applicable across the employer\u2019s sites and positions. A strong defense often features a showing that a company\u2019s timekeeping policies and practices vary by position, department, and facility, and may be pointed to in arguing that putative collective members are not similarly situated enough to warrant collective-wide treatment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Kathryn Brown, and Olga A. Romadin Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 24, 2026, Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification of a proposed collective of workers alleging that time-rounding practices resulted in overtime violations in Garner … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ohio Federal Court Grants Conditional Certification Of A Wide Collective Action Against The Cleveland Clinic Foundation”<\/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":[7,87,156],"class_list":["post-3305","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","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"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","author_category":"","last_name":"Brown","first_name":"Kathryn","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/kathrynrbrown.html","description":"Read Kathryn's Bio<\/a>"},{"term_id":156,"user_id":756,"is_guest":0,"slug":"oromadin","display_name":"Olga Romadin","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/02\/romadinolga-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Romadin","first_name":"Olga","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/olgaromadin.html","description":"Read Olga's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3305","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=3305"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3305\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3308,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3305\/revisions\/3308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3305"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}