330-470-4428
330-470-4428
Massillon, OH Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH

Current Class and Collective Actions

Our Ohio employment law attorneys work for you

"This not only helped me but thousands of other people who were being taken advantage of." - Sherry M.

Most of the wage law cases we handle at Nilges Draher LLC involve class actions and collective actions. This means that the employer has an illegal pay practice that applies to a group of similarly situated employees who have collectively acted against their employer.

We have earned the respect of our adversaries and of the courts as "abled and experienced counsel" in these types of cases. We have been successful in resolving many of these cases before filing a lawsuit. That's because our adversaries take us seriously.

Class action and collective action cases we are currently handling

Adams v. Frontier Railroad Services, LLC:  Our firm is seeking to represent a class of workers who were allegedly not paid for time spent traveling to jobsites in which an overnight stay was required.  This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. If you worked for this company within the last three years and were not paid for your time spent driving to jobsites in which an overnight stay was required, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Bailey v. Black Tie Moving Services, et al:  Our firm represents a class of employees defined as drivers and movers who worked for Black Tie Moving who performed off-the-clock work, were not paid travel time, and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016 to the present. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Black Tie Moving misclassified him and other movers and drivers as independent contractors, and failed to pay them for all overtime hours.

Baldwin, Lori v. Snap On Business Solutions: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of call center workers who allege that they were not paid for all of their hours worked, including but not limited to, powering up and shutting down their computers, logging in and out of their computers, and opening and closing multiple applications at the beginning and end of their workdays. This case is filed in the US District Court, for the Northern District of Ohio. If you worked as a call center employee for this company, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Barker, et al. v. George T. Maier, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio:  Our firm seeks to represent a class of hourly employees who work or worked for the Stark County, Ohio Sheriff’s Department.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated employees were not paid for their pre-shift and/or post-shift “pass down” duties, resulting in unpaid overtime.  In addition, the Named Plaintiff alleges that the Sheriff’s office miscalculated overtime payments to all employees who received bonus payments.

Byerly v. Robin Industries, Inc.: Our firm represents a class of employees who worked for Robin Industries as hourly employees. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Robin Industries’ hourly employees were not paid for pre-shift donning of safety equipment, and that the hourly employees were subject to a time rounding policy that resulted in unpaid overtime.

Carswell v U.S. Cable Corporation of Tampa, et al.: Our firm and the Lazzaro Law Firm represent a class of current and former cable installers who allege that they were denied overtime pay. This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Coleman v. Trophy Nut Co: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Trophy Nut Co. as hourly employees. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid for time spent putting on and taking off personal protective equipment and sanitary clothing and washing their hands a designated work stations.

Davis v. Summit Racing: Our firm and the Lazzaro Law Firm are seeking to represent a class of current and former call center employees who allege that they were not paid for certain pre-shift work, including but not limited to, booting up and logging into Defendant’s computer systems. This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. If you worked for this company as a call center employee, contact us to see if you qualify to joint this case.

Duncan-Watts v. Nestle USA, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Nestle USA or Nestle Frozen Foods as hourly production employees. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that she was not properly compensated for putting on and taking off sanitary and other protective clothing.

Gammon v. Marietta OPCA, LLC d/b/a Arbors at Marietta: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked as hourly employees for Arbors at Marietta. In this case, the Named Plaintiffs allege that they had a 30-minute lunch break deducted from their pay, despite working through their lunch most days, resulting in unpaid overtime.

Gorsha v. Hummingbird Home Care: Our firm represents a conditionally certified collective class of home health care workers who were required to travel to and from more than one work location within the work day but who were not paid for their time spent travelling between appointments, and who were also not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 each week.

Hayes v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.  Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Thor Motor Coach as piece-rate manufacturing employees. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay for “non-productive” work time and that Defendant failed to properly calculate the regular rate, both resulting in the underpayment of overtime compensation.

Hill v. Hillstone Healthcare, Inc.:  Our firm and the Coffman Legal law firm represent a class of current and former nurses who allege that they received bonus payments for working hours or days outside of their scheduled shift times.  This class of workers allege that they were underpaid overtime compensation.  This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  If you worked for this company, received bonus payments and worked overtime, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Johnson v. Centor, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of hourly employees of Centor, Inc. who performed pre- or post-shift work, such as donning and doffing sanitary clothing or who began working prior to the start of a scheduled shift, but were not paid for this time.

Kasiotis v. AWP, Inc. d/b/a Area Wide Protective: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for AWP as traffic control specialists. In this case, the Named Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid for time spent driving other traffic control specialists to and from jobsites, and associated inspections and other related work, resulting in the underpayment of overtime compensation.

Lambert v. G Matss LLC, et al.: Our firm represents a class of employees defined as former and current non-salaried employees who were employed at Defendants’ business locations in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek from December 17, 2015 to the present. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half times employees’ regular rates.

Langston, Paul v. U.S. Security Associates: Our firm represents two classes defined as current and former hourly security guards and of current and former non-supervisor hourly security guard employees employed by Defendant, who at any time since August 30, 2016 to the present (1) worked forty hours or more in a workweek, (2) relieved a preceding shift and/or was relieved by a subsequent shift, (3) was required to arrive at work before his/her shift began and/or to stay after his/her shift ended to perform “pass on” duties and was not allowed to be clocked in during this time outside his/her scheduled shift, (4) is not subject to an arbitration agreement with Defendant, and (5) did not exclusively work overlapping shifts. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay for compensable “pass on” time that resulted in the underpayment of overtime compensation.

Lewis v. Sentry Electrical Group, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who were required to travel out of state and stay overnight to perform work for Sentry Electrical but were not paid for this time, resulting in unpaid overtime.

Long v. Prestige: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of techs who were allegedly paid “tech time” instead of lawful overtime wages of one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Tech time was not counted towards all hours worked, so this resulted in a further underpayment of overtime. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. If you worked for this company as a tech in the last three years, and were paid “tech time”, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Magby v. Contract Transport Services, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Contract Transport Services, Inc. (aka CTS) as drivers.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid for time she spent waiting for an assignment, resulting in unpaid overtime.

Marcum v. Lakes Venture, LLC, d/b/a Fresh Thyme Farmers Market LLC: Our firm, along with the law firms of Coffman Legal and Bryant Legal, seeks to represent a class of hourly employees of Lakes Venture, LLC, d/b/a Fresh Thyme Farmers Market LLC (“Fresh Thyme”). In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Fresh Thyme failed to pay all overtime earned as a result of its lunch and break policies.

Matson v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Charles River Laboratories as technicians.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid for all hours that she worked because Charles River Laboratories rejected some of her time entries.

Mattison v. Trubridge:  Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who worked for Trubridge as inside sales representatives. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Trubridge failed to include earned commission payments in employees’ regular rates of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime.

Meyers v. Boomerang Rubber, Inc.: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of hourly employees who received additional remuneration, including shift differential, that was not included into overtime calculations, and who performed post-shift off-the-clock work, which resulted in the underpayment of overtime. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. If you worked for this company as an hourly employee in the last three years and were paid shift differentials or any other additional pay, and/or performed work after clocking out, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Mitchell v. Accord Healthcare: Our firm represents a conditionally certified collective class of employees who work or worked for Accord Healthcare as home health care workers.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that she was required to travel to and from more than one work location within the work day, but that she was not paid for her time spent traveling between appointments.

Miles v. Variety Wholesalers, Inc.:  Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Variety Wholesalers, Inc. as hourly employees. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay all minimum wages and overtime earned as a result of its lunch and break policies.

Neville v. Nelson Tree: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of workers who were allegedly not paid for time spent traveling to jobsites in which an overnight stay was required. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. If you worked for this company within the last three years and were not paid for your time spent driving to jobsites in which an overnight stay was required, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Pitts v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a group of security supervisors who were paid on an hourly basis, and who were required to respond to calls while off-duty but were not paid for that time.

Rice v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District: Our firm represents a class of former and current hourly non-exempt employees of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District who worked as a Security Officer. This class of employees allege that they were not paid for certain pre-shift duties. This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Riley v. Meteor Ceiling Systems: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of non-exempt, hourly employees who allege that they were not paid all of their overtime compensation and/or were paid their overtime compensation at the wrong rate. This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. If you worked for this company, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Seldomridge v. Fifth Third Bank: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of non-exempt Service to Solutions employees, and those working in other call center positions, who allege that they were not paid all overtime compensation resulting from unpaid time spent starting and logging into Defendant’s computer and phone systems and applications and reviewing emails. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. If you worked for this company, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Slaughter v. Lincoln Electric:  Our firm represents a conditionally certified collective class of employees who were paid on a piece-rate basis and employed at Lincoln Electric’s Mentor, Ohio or Euclid, Ohio facilities.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that employees began working 10-15 minutes before their shifts, but that they were not paid for any time worked outside of their scheduled shift hours.

Smith v. CHS Employment Services, LLC: Our firm and the Coffman Legal law firm are seeking to represent a class of current and former hourly non-exempt employees who allege that they received bonus payments for working hours or days outside of their scheduled shift times. This class of workers allege that they were underpaid overtime compensation. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. If you worked for this company, received bonus payments and worked overtime, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Smith v. PPG:  Our firm represents a conditionally certified collective class of hourly employees who were employed by PPG at its Cleveland, Ohio; Strongsville, Ohio; Euclid, Ohio; or Huron, Ohio locations.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that employees at these locations were required to arrive for work in advance of their shifts to put on uniforms and/or protective equipment on site, but that PPG failed to pay employees for their time worked outside of their scheduled shift hours.

Terrell v. Health Care Bridge, Inc.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Health Care Bridge as home healthcare providers. In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay her and others like her for time spent traveling travel to and from more than one work location within the same work day.

Townsend v. Stand Up Management: Our firm is seeking to represent a class of employees for claims of unpaid minimum wages and overtime. The lawsuit alleges that this class of employees performed non-exempt work but were not paid overtime compensation and/or a minimum wage in workweeks during the last three years. This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. If you worked for these companies, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Walton v. Oldcastle Building Envelope, Inc.:  Our firm and the Coffman Legal law firm is seeking to represent a class of hourly, non-exempt employees who allege that Oldcastle had a companywide policy of improperly rounding hourly employees’ start and stop times, which resulted in unpaid overtime.  These employees also allege that they were not paid for time spent putting on protective clothing before the start of their shifts.  This case is filed in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division.  If you worked for this company within the last three years as an hourly employee, contact us to see if you qualify to join this case.

Wright v. The Kroger Co.: Our firm seeks to represent a class of employees who work or worked for Kroger as a warehouse employee.  In this case, the Named Plaintiff alleges that he and other employees whose wages were based on “incentive payments” would perform unpaid work off the clock before the start of their shift and following their shift.  This unpaid work includes obtaining an electronic “talkman” device and headset before shift and returning it after the shift, and also includes performing an OSHA-required pre-trip inspection on their pallet jack or forklift before shift and docking the equipment post shift.

Younge v. Huntington National Bank: Our firm represents a group of hourly employees who handled inbound calls allege that they were not paid for time they spent starting, booting up and logging into Huntington’s computer systems, software applications and/or phone systems and/or reviewing emails and memoranda prior to clocking in at the beginning of their shift. This case is filed in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Massillon Office

7266 Portage Street NW
Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: 330-470-4428
Fax: 330-754-1430

Cleveland Office

614 W. Superior Avenue
Suite 1148
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-230-2955
Fax: 330-754-1430

Columbus Office

34 N. High Street
Suite 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-824-5770
Fax: 330-754-1430

Free Consultation
Free Case Consultation
To schedule your free consultation, please fill out this form and one of our legal professionals will contact you.