Krupa v. Support For You, LLC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

David A. Ruiz United States Magistrate Judge

I. Procedural History

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff Sarah Krupa (Plaintiff) commenced an action against Defendants Support for You, LLC and Mark Cain, wherein Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action: (1) a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for allegedly failing to compensate Plaintiff at one and one-half (11/2) times her regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) horns per week as well as a retaliation claim under the FLSA; (2) a violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act (OCRA) for failing to accommodate Plaintiffs disability and/or termination for having an actual and/or perceived disability: and (3) interference with leave requested pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). (R. 1). Now pending is Defendants' motion for summary judgment (R. 27), as well as Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. (R. 26).

II. Summary of Key Facts

In his deposition. Defendant Cain stated that Support for You was barely operating and was

being phased out due to a lack of credentials from the State. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 9-10). He became involved with Support for You four years earlier in the summer of 2016 when he met Harvey Yager. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1; Tr. 11-12, 19). Yager held 100 percent ownership in Support for You as registered with the State, but Cain held 51 percent ownership of the business as a holding company and Yager 49 percent.^[1] (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 19; Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 18-19). Cain stated he had little to do with the management of Support for You for the first few years, as Yager ran the day-to-day workings of the business and Plaintiff soon took over running the business after she was hired. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 20).

Plaintiff was hired in 2017 part-time to handle bookkeeping, and Cain interviewed her personally. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 24-26, 33; Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 15-17). She quickly became a full-time employee within about a month, and Cain stated Plaintiff and he became “mutual management.” (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 26-27, 32). Cain indicated Plaintiff basically ran Support for You, and did nearly all the hiring and firing. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 30-32). Yager testified to the contrary, stating Plaintiff did not have the ability to hire or fire employees. (Yager Depo. R. 28-1, Tr. 32, 35, 43). Plaintiff also denied having any authority to hire or fire. (Krupa, R. 26-2, Tr. 29-30). Per Cain, Plaintiff also supervised employees. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 34). Plaintiff testified Cain stopped by the office almost daily. (Krupa Depo., R 26-2, Tr. 20, 34).

Plaintiff was compensated $20 per hour from the outset and that remained unchanged throughout her employment.^[2] (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 37-38; Yager Depo. R. 28-1, Tr. 26, 29;

Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 22). Cain testified Plaintiff was not a salaried employee, but paid hourly. Id. A number of other employees were compensated with a salary rather than on an hourly basis. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 40; Yager Depo. R. 28-1, Tr. 36-37; Krupa Depo, R. 26-2, Tr. 30, 36). Cain indicated he did not want anybody working overtime, including Plaintiff. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 42). Plaintiff testified that she never heard Cain state that he did not want anyone working overtime, only that Cain did not want employees to be paid overtime. (Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 38). Caine testified Plaintiff took the initiative to make sure employees stayed under forty-hours per week. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 43). Cain indicated he never told Plaintiff not to compensate her own hours above the forty-hour cap at less than time and a half, but rather that he told her that if she had to work overtime not to exceed 45-hours per week. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 48).

In discussions with the Department of Labor regarding an investigation of Support For You, Cain testified that an investigator agreed that Plaintiff was a supervisor. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 60-61).

Cain indicated he spoke to Plaintiff several times about knee replacement surgery, which came up from nearly the time she started working for Support For You. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 81). Cain testified that he stated it was not a problem, and that she ultimately requested time off work for the procedure. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 82-83). He indicated Plaintiff believed she would be off for four to six weeks, but that she wanted to work from home when needed. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 83). Yager testified that Plaintiff discussed having surgery with them, and they approved her time off unpaid.^[3] (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 55, 74; Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr.

71-72, 75). Plaintiff testified as follows:

All along leading up to it, it was completely understood that I would leave, have my surgery

We said probably for that first week I would not do any work, but by the end of the first week after the surgery, I would be doing the billing and gathering the payroll reports to submit to the payroll company.

Jennifer Brink was going to gather all the bills that came in, come to my house. We would draw up the checks. She would take them back to Mark Cain to sign, and that was the process that was going to transpire.

I got all of the financial records together for 2017 and the first quarter of 2018 and gave them to Bill Young, ^[4] physically handed them to him along with a flash drive for the computer so that they had everything they needed to process the taxes, and the whole first quarter was done.

We got everything tied up and really buttoned down so that I could have that week, and then I took my -- I was given permission to take the computer home, and I was going to work from home for a couple of weeks.

And then I was going to come back to the office, and they were probably going to have me sit downstairs because I might not be able to tackle the stairs just yet.

(Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 69-70). Plaintiff testified that she anticipated she would only need to work from home for one to two weeks before returning to the office. (Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 72, 97).

Cain indicated he wanted Plaintiff to turn over the computer before her surgery so another employee could handle billing or payroll. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 84). Cain testified that he did not approve of Plaintiff removing the computer from the work premises, though Yager and Plaintiff testified that she was permitted to go home with the computer. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 85; Yager Depo. R. 28-1, Tr. 56; Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 71).

Plaintiff stated that the day after her surgery, she informed Cain and Yager that there was not enough money in the company bank account to cover payroll. (Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 76). Cain indicated he received a call from Plaintiff the day of or the day after her surgery informing him that the company was $4, 000 to $5, 000 short for payroll. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 88). Yager testified that Plaintiff had warned them by email and text that there was going to be a shortfall. (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 57-59). Cain indicated this was the fourth or fifth occurrence of a payroll shortfall. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 90-91). Yager testified that shortfalls were more common before Plaintiff was hired and that he recalled only two shortfalls since her hiring. (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 57). Cain spoke to Plaintiff by phone the following day in the presence of Yager and another employee, Mike Hall. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 93). Yager identified the same individuals were present. (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 57).

Caine denied terminating Plaintiff's employment during the May 18, 2018, telephone call. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 94-95). Yager testified to the contrary, indicating that Caine had stated “you're done” to Plaintiff, which Yager understood as Cain firing Plaintiff. (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 60-61, 84). Plaintiff also considered herself fired after the conversation with Caine on May 18, 2018. (Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 10-11). She testified as follows:

He was livid that there wasn't any money for payroll. He wanted the work computer.

I explained to him it wouldn't do him any good to have the work computer. That wasn't going to put money in the bank. He didn't know how to read QuickBooks. He didn't know how to read the report. I tried to explain to him why we were short on payroll. He was just screaming at me. He wanted the code to my house so he could come to my home to get the computer. He said I was done, “You're fired. I want your computer. I want it now. Give me the code to your house. I will go get it.”

And I said, “Absolutely not. I will have my husband bring it to you.”

(Krupa Depo., R. 26-2, Tr. 79-80). Plaintiff did not recall Cain being upset about anything else on the call besides the payroll shortfall and wanting the computer back. Id. at Tr. 82. She also testified that she put in no requests related to medical leave during the May 18, 2018 telephone call. Id. at Tr. 98.

Yager also testified that Caine had indicated there was a mismanagement of funds. (Yager Depo., R. 28-1, Tr. 61). Cain did not recall accusing Plaintiff of mismanaging funds. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 90). Yager stated that, although Cain was not sure, Cain suspected Plaintiff wrote unauthorized checks or funneled money out other ways. Id. Yager also stated that Plaintiff denied the accusations made during the telephone call and assured them the computer would be returned as soon as possible.^[5] Id.

The computer was returned the following day, and Cain indicates everyone was anticipating Plaintiff's return, but that she never showed up for work. (Cain Depo., R. 26-1, Tr. 99-101...