Judge Allows FLSA Notice to 24 McDonald’s Locations in Joint-Employer Suit

COLUMBUS (LN) — U.S. District Judge Pamela A. Barker on Monday ruled that a plaintiff in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action can seek court-approved notice to employees at 24 McDonald’s restaurants operated by a group of affiliated LLCs, rejecting a defense argument that the scope of notice should be limited to a single entity.

Barker, sitting in the Northern District of Ohio, held that the plaintiff, Jessica Douglas, presented a colorable joint-employer theory that justified notice to the broader network of restaurants alleged in her Amended Complaint, rather than limiting notice solely to Defendant QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC.

The court’s decision addresses two threshold issues following a failed mediation: whether FLSA-notice discovery should extend to all the limited liability companies and locations referenced in the complaint, and whether the question of joint employment should be decided immediately or deferred until after notice has been distributed.

Barker held that the employment status of the workers is a merits issue that must be resolved after the notice stage, consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent. She cited Clark v. A&;L Homecare for the principle that while individualized defenses like arbitration agreements may be considered stage, general employer-status questions are premature.

“Simply put, Plaintiff’s position is that the employees working the 24 McDonald’s restaurants at issue are employed Defendants,” Barker wrote. “Defendants’ position, however, is that those employees are employed by the Non-Defendant Entities.”

The judge distinguished the case from Knecht v. C&;W Facility Servs., where a plaintiff sought to include employees of non-party entities without alleging joint employment. Here, Douglas alleged that the named defendants jointly employed the workers through interrelated operations, common ownership, and centralized control of labor relations.

Barker noted that the record contained evidence supporting this theory, including a declaration from defendant Jason Payne stating that QSR Executive Enterprises wholly owned the non-defendant entities, and employee declarations asserting they were employed by “QSR Enterprises.”

The court also pointed to signage at two locations reading “you are employed by QSR Executive Enterprises” as part of the evidence suggesting a unified management structure.

“Although it offers no opinion today as to whether Defendants are indeed joint employers... the Court does note that Defendant’s own evidence, in part, supports Plaintiff’s theory,” Barker wrote.

Barker rejected the defendants’ due process arguments, finding that the plaintiff was not seeking to bind the non-defendant entities but rather to determine if the named defendants were joint employers of the proposed collective.

The judge criticized the parties’ proposed discovery schedule, which would not have made the motion for court-approved notice ripe until 2027. She called the timeline “unacceptable” given the mandate in Clark to expedite decisions.

The matter had been stayed for nine months while the parties attempted mediation. Barker noted that the parties spent seven months negotiating a resolution without narrowing the issues.

“Given Clark’s mandate, the Court will issue a separate order setting forth a more condensed schedule,” Barker wrote.

The case involves allegations that the defendants violated the FLSA’s overtime provisions and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act’s overtime provisions for current and former hourly employees who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without proper compensation.

Douglas is represented by Robi J. Baishnab. Defendants are represented by Donald G. Slezak.