Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—N.D. Ohio: FLSA-notice discovery appropriate at McDonalds franchise operations, (May 19, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Questions of whether the defendants are joint employers are premature at the initial stage of an FLSA collective action.

In a wage suit brought by an employee of a McDonald’s franchisee, alleging that three related entities were joint employers, a federal district court in Ohio found that FLSA-notice discovery was appropriate at the restaurants. Specifically, the employee alleged that “[d]uring all relevant times, Defendants, individually and jointly, employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees at their restaurants ....” The court found under Clark v. A&L Homecare, FLSA-notice discovery was appropriate at the 24 McDonald’s restaurants alleged in the amended complaint. However, the court found that the employment status of employees at those restaurants is a merits issue to be resolved after notice occurred (Douglas v. QSR Enterprises Adm, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00928-PAB (N.D. Ohio May 18, 2026)).

Joint employer issue. On May 8, 2025, the employee filed her Class and Collective Action Complaint for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act against three entities that operate 24 McDonald’s restaurants in northeast Ohio. The employee alleged that the three entities are joint employers of the employee and others similarly situated.

This opinion concerns two threshold issues that were briefed by the parties: (1) whether FLSA-notice discovery pursuant to Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023) is appropriate solely for one defendant, QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC, as opposed to all three entities and the McDonald’s locations referenced in the amended complaint, and (2) whether these issues should be decided immediately as a threshold issue prior to FLSA-notice discovery commencing or as a merits issue after FLSA notice has occurred.

FLSA notice. In Clark, the Sixth Circuit held that “for a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to other employees, the plaintiffs must show a ‘strong likelihood’ that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiffs themselves.”

Because the statute of limitations continues to run until similarly situated employees “opt in,” the Sixth Circuit mandates that “[i]n applying this standard, district courts should expedite their decision to the extent practicable.” And the district court “may promptly initiate discovery.”

Merits-based defenses. Before Clark, district courts did “not generally consider the merits of the claims, resolve factual disputes, or evaluate credibility” at the notice stage of a FLSA case. Thus, district courts within the Sixth Circuit historically deferred addressing the question of whether a defendant is a proper “employer” until after the notice stage.

In Clark, the Sixth Circuit found, however, that “[w]hether other employees are subject to individualized defenses—such as an employee’s agreement to arbitrate a claim—can also affect whether particular employees are similarly situated for purposes of sending notice. Applying this rule, the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the employer’s defense that certain class members were subject to arbitration agreements was “off-limits for purposes of the notice determination because that defense presents ‘merit questions.’”

Although Clark found that individualized defenses are relevant at the notice stage, courts continue to defer merits-based questions until after the notice stage when those questions are “equally applicable to all [plaintiffs].” Therefore, “[e]ven under the post-Clark standard, courts in this circuit defer resolution of [] merits-based employer status questions until ‘after the Parties have had the opportunity to engage in discovery.’” Accordingly, “questions of whether the defendants are joint employers is premature at the initial stage” of a FLSA collective action.

Employment status. With these standards in mind, the court addressed the parties’ arguments as to whether the three entities acted as joint employers and/or operated as a single integrated enterprise under the FLSA by jointly managing McDonald’s restaurants across Ohio through interrelated operations, common ownership, centralized control of labor relations, and unified management structure.”

Here, the employee alleged that the three entities were her joint employers. She specifically alleged that “[d]uring all relevant times, Defendants, individually and jointly, employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees at their restaurants ....” She further alleged that the defendants own and operate a chain of approximately 24 restaurants across Ohio, under the trade name McDonald’s.

The court found that the employee’s theory was that the named Defendants jointly employed the proposed collective. The court did not construe the employee’s amended complaint as alleging that non-defendant entities employed the plaintiff and/or the proposed collective. Thus, the employee was not seeking to bind the non-defendant entities in this case.

Simply put, the plaintiff’s position is that the employees working the 24 McDonald’s restaurants at issue are employed by the named defendants. The defendants’ position, however, is that those employees are employed by the non-defendant entities. Evidence in the record suggested a colorable joint employment theory. However, the court found it did not need to resolve this issue now. The appropriate thing to do was to resolve the employment issue after the notice stage. If any opt-in is truly employed by one of the non-defendant entities, then the defendants can make that argument at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. The issue of which entity employed the plaintiff and the proposed collective was for another day and can be decided after the notice period of the case has concluded.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00928-PAB.

Judge: Barker, P.

Attorneys: Robert E. DeRose, II (Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox) for Jessica Douglas. David A. Campbell, III (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for QSR Enterprises Admin, LLC, QSR Executive Enterprises, LLC, and QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC.

Companies: QSR Enterprises Adm, LLC; QSR Executive Enterprises, LLC; QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime Procedure OhioNews