Elita One v. Emergency Med. Transport, Inc.
Case Details
- Citation
- 2021-Ohio-2990
- Judge(s)
- Eklund; Wright and Lynch concur
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Ohio
Outcome
The Ohio appellate court affirmed summary judgment for EMT on these paramedics’ FLSA sleep-time claim. It found express and implied agreement during their second employment periods: they returned knowing the Plus Four Policy and did not renew earlier objections. Continued work and accepting pay alone were not conclusive proof of agreement.
Excerpt
CIVIL – Fair Labor Standards Act 29 C.F.R. 785.22 overtime compensation 24-hour shift sleeping period hours worked at-will employment disclaimer employee handbook express agreement continuing to work and accept pay is not conclusive evidence of implied agreement contemporaneous protest summary judgment.
What This Ruling Means
Elita One v. Emergency Medical Transport, Inc.
Decision
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed employer summary judgment on the paramedics’ FLSA sleep-time claim. They had objected during earlier employment, then returned knowing the Plus Four Policy without renewing those objections. The court found both express and implied agreement.
Limits
The opinion states that continued work and accepting pay are not conclusive proof of agreement; contemporaneous verbal or written protest matters. It does not require a formal written objection. The regulation also requires adequate sleeping facilities and ordinarily uninterrupted sleep; duty interruptions count as work. These facts do not establish a general rule that accepting pay forfeits wage claims.
Original opinion, paragraphs 13, 20, 22, 25–29.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.