Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. This matter came before the Court on June 22, 2010 for a bench trial, which continued through June 24, 2010. Having taken the matter under advisement at the conclusion of that trial, the Court now issues its decision in favor of Plaintiffs. I. Background On February 8, 2006, Plaintiff Amy Baden-Winterwood initiated the instant litigation, individually and as a putative representative for a collective action, asserting claims for unpaid wages and overtime and for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., against her employer, Defendant Life Time Fitness (“Defendant” or “LTF”). LTF is a Minnesota corporation that owns and operates approximately 90 health and fitness centers throughout the United States. On August 8, 2006, the parties stipulated (Doc. # 20) to the conditional certification of a class of employees employed by LTF who, at any time since February 8, 2003(1) had not been paid overtime for hours worked over 40 during any given week; (2) had been paid a predetermined amount, which was identified by LTF as base salary, during any given pay period; and (3) had been covered by a bonus or incentive compensation plan which included a provision allowing for "deductions to be made from the employee’s base salary to recover for bonus or incentive overpayments. Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood mailed notice to the potential class members and, currently, the class consists of 24 individuals who are current or former employees of LTF (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs are divided into four different employment departments: 11 are Department Heads in Member Activities, 5 are Department Heads in the Life Café, 7 are Department Heads in the Life Spa, and 1 is the Director of Project Management Organization (“Director of PMO”). II. Summary Judgment Decision and Appeal of that Decision On April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment arguing that they were entitled to overtime wages for each week of the class period because they were not paid on a salary basis. (Doc. # 62.) Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that they were not paid on a salary basis because their pay was subject to reduction as a result “of variations in the quality or quantity” of their work, in violation of FLSA’s salary-basis test, 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a). Plaintiffs further claimed that they were entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and attorneys’ fees and costs. Also on April 20, 2007, Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that any reductions in Plaintiffs’ salaries were to recover advances of bonus pay unearned by Plaintiffs. (Doc. #57.) The reductions, Defendant claimed, were unrelated to the quality or quantity of Plaintiffs’ work, and therefore, were not a violation of FLSA’s salary-basis test. Alternatively, Defendant argued that to the extent any reductions violated the FLSA, Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime pay only for those pay periods when actual reductions occurred. On July 10, 2007, the Court issued an Opinion and Order on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment granting each in part and denying each in part. In that decision, the Court explained that to establish an overtime exemption under the FLSA an employer must satisfy three tests: “ ‘a (1) duties test; (2) salary level test; and (3) salary basis test.’ ” Acs v. Detroit Edison Co., 444 F.3d 763, 767 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting Takacs v. Hahn Auto. Corp., 246 F.3d 776, 779 (6th Cir.2001)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (2004) “(duties test); 29 C.F.R. § 541.600 (2004) (salary level test); 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 (2004) (salary basis test).” (Doc. # 75 at 12.) The Court bifurcated the time period at issue, finding that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the salary-basis test in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997), controlled for the time period before August 23, 2004, while 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 controlled for the time period between August 23, 2004 and March 3, 2006. Applying these tests, the Court concluded that certain Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime compensation but only for the three pay periods occurring in November and December, 2005, when actual deductions were taken from Plaintiffs’ pay. The Court did not address the issue of Plaintiff Tina Seals’s compensation under the salary level test. Plaintiffs and Defendant appealed that decision. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the decision and concluded: [T]he Court AFFIRMS the district court’s decision bifurcating the class period, finding that violations of 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 occurred in November and December of 2005, and limiting § 541.603 overtime compensation to those three pay periods. However, the Court REVERSES the district court insofar as it found that the pre-August 23, 2004 compensation plan did not create a substantial likelihood of deductions. The Court, therefore, concludes that Life Time Fitness is liable for overtime compensation to those Plaintiffs employed and subject to the corporate bonus-pay plan from January 1, 2004 to August 23, 2004. Finally, the Court REMANDS the issue of whether Plaintiff Tina Seals’s compensation met the salary level test to the district court for further consideration consistent with this opinion. (Doc. # 88 at 24) (emphasis in original). III. Case After Remand After remand, this Court was presented with two issues to consider before the case was heard as a trial to the court. First, the Court considered the issue of representative testimony and determined that Plaintiffs were permitted to present representative testimony at trial. (Doc. # 98.) Second, the Court considered the claims presented by class member Tina Seals. The Court addressed, initially, whether Seals’s salary level test claim was properly before it and, on April 7, 2010, issued an Opinion and Order in which it concluded that it was. (Doc. # 101.) In that decision, the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing the merits of Seals’s claim. The Court ultimately determined that Seals was entitled to receive pay for the hours she worked over 20 during the relevant time period. (Docs.# 105, 110.) The Court indicated that Seals would be permitted to present testimony at the bench trial to support her unpaid wages claim. IV. Stipulations The parties entered into three stipulations for trial purposes. (Docs.# 56, 95, 120.) The first was filed on April 19, 2007 and states the following: 1. Life Time Fitness is an employer covered by the FLSA. 2. Plaintiffs’ claim is that Defendant’s method of compensating Plaintiffs was not consistent with the salary basis test, presently codified at 29 C.F.R. § 541.602, and, thus, Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA during the pay periods falling within the limitations period, and thus are entitled to overtime for hours worked over forty for each week during said limitations period, whatever said limitations period is determined to be. Defendant contends that its pay plan at all times complied with the FLSA and that Plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime for any pay period during their employment with Defendant. In the alternative, Defendant contends that to the extent any Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime, such liability period is limited to the period of time during which actual deductions occurred from Plaintiffs’ salaries. 3. The salary basis test is explained in 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a), which provides, in part: An employee will be considered to be paid on a “salary basis” within the meaning of these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation, which amount is not subject to reductions because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. 4. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that language in certain corporate bonus pay plans which covered them during their employment with Defendant, under which Defendant reserved the right to make deductions from their base salaries to recover for earlier bonus over-payments on a year-to-date basis, and the fact that such deductions were made from eight Plaintiffs as set forth in paragraphs 13 through 16, was inconsistent with the salary basis test. Corporate Bonus Pay Plans 5. Each Plaintiff was compensated under a corporate bonus pay plan for some period of time during which he or she was employed by Defendant during the time period potentially relevant to this lawsuit (February 8, 2003 through March 3, 2006). 6. During the periods of time for which each Plaintiff was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan, he or she generally was paid a pre-determined amount of compensation, identified by Life Time Fitness as base salary, on a semi-monthly basis. In addition to base salary, each Plaintiff was eligible to receive monthly bonus payments based on year-to-date performance according to guidelines set forth in his or her corporate bonus pay plan. 7. The first date any Plaintiff was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan which contained language reserving Defendant’s right to make deductions from Plaintiffs’ base salaries to recover for earlier bonus overpayments on a year-to-date basis was January 1, 2004. The periods of time each Plaintiff was covered by such corporate bonus pay plans (referred to as “corporate bonus pay plans at issue in this lawsuit”) are set forth below in paragraphs 21 through 46. 2004 Corporate Bonus Pay Plans 8. Defendant’s 2004 corporate bonus pay plans, effective January 1, 2004, covered Plaintiffs employed during 2004 as senior management, Member Activities Department Heads. Around April 1, 2004, the plans were further extended to Life Café Department Heads. The following Plaintiffs were covered by corporate bonus pay plans for some or all of 2004, as further specified below in paragraphs 21 through 46: Baden-Winterwood, Barge, Brevard, Chaney, Davenport, Galloway, Gregorich, House, Konieczny, Mendez, Nutinsky, and Schroeder. 9. Plaintiffs’ 2004 corporate bonus pay plans contained the following language: “If, during the year, YTD EBITDA (sic) Before Occupancy $ (sic) performance drops below the minimum performance level of 80% of plan, and payments have been made in previous months, then LTF reserves the right to reclaim the amount of the previous payments by reducing future semimonthly guarantee payments.” 10. No Plaintiff had his or her base salary reduced in 2004 to recover earlier bonus overpayments. 2005 Corporate Bonus Pay Plans 11. Defendant’s 2005 corporate bonus pay plans, effective January 1, 2005, covered Plaintiffs employed during 2005 as senior management, Member Activities Department Heads, Life Café Department Heads, and Life Spa Department Heads. The following Plaintiffs were covered by corporate bonus pay plans for some or all of 2005, as further specified below in paragraphs 21 through 46: Baden-Winterwood, Barclay, Barge, Brevard, Chaney, Erdman, Fuss, Galloway, Gregorich, House, Johnson, Lloyd, Mann, McCarthy, Mendez, Nutinsky, Richards, Seals, Visser, Volbrecht, Weiler, West, and Young. 12. Plaintiffs’ 2005 corporate bonus pay plans contained the following language: “If, during the year, performance drops to a level such that bonus payments made exceed the amount earned, Life Time Fitness reserves the right to reclaim the amount of the overpayment by reducing future semi-monthly base salary payments.” 13. Across three pay dates in November and December 2005 — namely, November 9, November 23, and December 9 — a total of 8 Plaintiffs had their base salaries reduced to recover some of the amounts of unearned bonus overpayments they had received earlier in the year. 14. Plaintiffs whose base salaries were reduced for the November 9, 2005 pay date were Baden-Winterwood, Barclay, Gregorich, House, and Young. 15. Plaintiffs whose base salaries were reduced for the November 23, 2005 pay date were Baden-Winterwood, Erdman, Gregorich, House, and Young. 16. Plaintiffs whose base salaries were reduced for the December 9, 2005 pay date were Baden-Winterwood, Barclay, Erdman, Galloway, Gregorich, House, Mendez, and Young. 2006 Corporate Bonus Pay Plans 17. Defendant’s 2006 corporate bonus pay plans, effective January 1, 2006, applied to the same universe of relevant positions as the 2005 corporate plans. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs employed as Member Activities Department Heads, Life Café Department Heads, and Life Spa Department Heads during some or all of 2006 generally were covered by the 2006 corporate bonus pay plans. These individuals were Baden-Winter-wood, Barclay, Erdman, Fuss, Galloway, Gregorich, Lloyd, Mann, McCarthy, Mendez, Visser, Weiler, West, and Young. 18. Effective January 1, 2006, Defendant altered its corporate bonus pay plans to implement a 20% hold back “bank,” which Defendant designed to protect the corporation from bonus over-payments on a year-to-date basis. Defendant revised Plaintiffs’ 2004 and 2005corporate bonus pay plans to provide that “On a YTD basis if the amount of At Risk Pay or Performance Pay earned is less than the amount paid, Life Time Fitness Inc. reserves the right to reclaim the amount of the overpayment by reducing the 20% monthly hold-back and if necessary future semi-monthly base salary payments. On an annual basis, in no case will the Guarantee Pay be lowered.” 19. Following the filing of the instant lawsuit, in recognition of the fact that at least one of its employees believed its corporate bonus pay plans may have violated the FLSA, and as an employee relations measure, Defendant decided to further alter its 2006 corporate bonus pay plans so that any attempts to recover earlier bonus overpayments would be taken only from the 20% hold back bank. On or around March 3, 2006, Defendant issued revised copies of its 2006 corporate bonus pay plans, which Defendant backdated to be effective January 1, 2006, and which contained the following language: “On a YTD basis if the amount of AL-Risk Pay or Performance Pay earned is less than the amount paid, Life Time Fitness Inc. reserves the right to reclaim the amount of the overpayment from the banked Performance Pay hold-back. In no case will the Guaranteed Pay be reduced.” 20. None of the Plaintiffs had his or her base salary reduced at any point during 2006 to recover earlier bonus overpayments. Facts Relevant to Individual Plaintiffs’ Claims 21. Amy Baden-Winterwood has been employed by Life Time Fitness as a Member Activities Department Head from July 1, 1999 through the present. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2004 through March 3, 2006. 22. Jennifer Barclay was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Café Department Head from June 1, 2005 through January 15, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from June 1, 2005 through January 15, 2006. 23. Victor Barge was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Director-Project Management Organization from July 6, 2004 through September 1, 2005. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from July 6, 2004 through September 1, 2005. 24. Kristina Brevard was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Member Activities Department Head from April 30, 2004 through August 31, 2005. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from April 30, 2004 through August 31, 2005. 25. Teresa Chaney was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately August 1, 1999 through August 2, 2005. She was employed as a Member Activities Department Head during the period from February 8, 2003 through August 2, 2005. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2004 through August 2, 2005. 26. Elizabeth (Campbell) Davenport was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Member Activities Department Head from October 15, 2002 through February 14, 2004. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2004 through February 14, 2004. 27. Sarah (Swearman) Erdman has been employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately April 9, 2003 through the present. She was employed as a Life Spa Department Head from June 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from June 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006. 28. Meghan Fuss was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately April 2004 through March 1, 2006. She was employed as a Life Spa Department Head from July 16, 2005 through March 1, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from July 16, 2005 through March 1, 2006. 29. Judith Galloway has been employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Café Department Head from December 2, 2003 through the present. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from April 1, 2004 through March 3, 2006. 30. Lisa Gregorich was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately September 2003 through February 15, 2006. She was employed as a Member Activities Department Head from December 16, 2003 through February 15, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2004 through February 15, 2006. 31. Jamie House has been employed by Life Time Fitness from January 21,1999 through the present. She was employed as a Member Activities Department Head from January 21, 1999 through approximately November 16, 2005. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay-plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2004 through approximately November 16, 2005, when she became an hourly Member Activities Instructor. 32. Chrisondra Johnson was employed by Life Time Fitness from September 15, 2004 through October 15, 2005. She was employed as a Life Spa Department Head from February 1, 2005 through October 15, 2005; however, she went on unpaid leave on August 8, 2005, and performed no work thereafter. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from February 1, 2005 through October 15, 2005. 33. Scott Konieczny was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Café Department Head from October 24, 2002 through October 1, 2004. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit April 1, 2004 through October 1, 2004. 34. Jacob Lloyd was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Spa Department Head from June 16, 2005 through February 15, 2006. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from June 16, 2005 through February 15, 2006. 35. Christopher Mann has been employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Café Department Head from March 1, 2005 through the present. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from March 1, 2005 through March 3, 2006. 36. Jennifer McCarthy has been employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Spa Department Head from July 7, 2003 through the present. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2005 through March 3, 2006. 37. Angela Mendez has been employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Café Department Head from May 13, 2002 through the present. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from April 1, 2004 through March 3, 2006. 38. Robert Nutinsky was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately December 2, 2003 to June 15, 2006. He was employed as a Member Activities Department Head from March 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from March 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005. 39. Marcia Richards was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Life Spa Department Head from approximately September 28, 1999 through January 1, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2006. 40. Andrea Schroeder was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Member Activities Department Head from March 29, 2004 through September 2, 2004. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from March 29, 2004 through September 2, 2004. 41. Tina Seals was employed by Life Time Fitness at various times from approximately January 12, 1999 through October 24, 2005. She was employed as a Member Activities Department Head from August 1, 2005 through October 24, 2005. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from August 1, 2005 through October 24, 2005. 42. Bridgett Visser (now Ipema) was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately August 15, 2001 until July 21, 2006. She was employed as a Member Activities Department Head from January 1, 2005 through July 21, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from January 1, 2005 through July 21, 2006. 43. Aaron Volbrecht was employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately November 16, 2000 until August 1, 2005. He was employed as a salaried Sales Manager from March 1, 2005 through August 1, 2005. He was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from March 1, 2005 through August 1, 2005. 44. Elizabeth (Venezia) Weiler has been employed by Life Time Fitness from approximately September 29, 2004 through the present. She was employed as a Life Spa Department Head from May 1, 2005 through July 5, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from May 1, 2005 through July 5, 2006. 45. Theresa West was employed by Life Time Fitness at various times from approximately May 8, 2000 through February 17, 2007. She was employed as a Life Spa Department Head from July 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from July 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006. 46. Beth Ann Young (now Bird) was employed by Life Time Fitness as a Member Activities Department Head from February 7, 2005 through January 17, 2006. She was covered by a corporate bonus pay plan at issue in this lawsuit from February 7, 2005 through January 17, 2006. (Doc. # 56) (emphases in original). On January 18, 2010, the parties entered their second stipulation containing the following: 1. The statute of limitations for this action shall be two years for all Plaintiffs with the exception of Plaintiff Davenport who may seek to recover .5 times any awarded overtime damages for the 6 weeks she worked from January 1 through February 14, 2004 (even though that entire period falls outside the agreed-upon limitations period). The effect of this agreement on the statute of limitations for the remaining Plaintiffs, considered alongside each Plaintiffs opt-in date and the Court’s previous order for tolling, is as follows: A.) Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood may seek overtime damages for the weeks ordered by the Sixth Circuit as far back as February 8, 2004; B.) Plaintiffs Barclay, Barge, Brevard, Erdman, Fuss, Galloway, Gregorich, House, Konieczny, Lloyd, Mann, McCarthy, Mendez, Nutinsky, Richards, Schroeder, Weiler, West, and Young (now known as Bird) may seek overtime damages for the weeks ordered by the Sixth Circuit as far back as May 16, 2004; C.) Plaintiffs Chaney and Visser (now known as Ipema) may seek overtime damages for the weeks ordered by the Sixth Circuit as far back as May 31, 2004. D.) Should this Court decide Plaintiff Tina Seals may proceed on her claims, she may seek any proven damages as far back as May 16, 2004. E.) The method of calculating overtime (the “multiplier” issue) shall be the method adopted by the Court in Gregorich v. Life Time Fitness, Case No. 07 CH 9793, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Order dated March 25, 2009 to wit: hours Plaintiffs worked including and between 41 and 46 shall be calculated at .5 their regular rate, and hours worked over 46 shall be calculated at 1.5 their regular rate. The regular rate shall be determined by each Plaintiffs: remuneration in the time period / number of weeks worked in the time period / weekly hours salary was intended to compensate (20 for Plaintiff Tina Seals; 46 for the remaining Plaintiffs). 2. To account for the parties’ agreement relative to liquidated damages, Plaintiffs’ total overtime damages shall equal 1.7 times the amount of any established overtime damages. 3.The agreements made herein are made solely for purposes of settling various issues in this litigation, and shall not be construed as an admission by either party or prejudice either party’s appellate rights in any other litigation. (Doc. # 95.) On June 18, 2010, the parties entered their third stipulation, which specifically incorporated the previous two for trial purposes. That stipulation provided: 1. The parties’ April 19, 2007 stipulation (Doc. # 56) is part of the record for trial. 2. The parties’ January 18, 2010 stipulation (Doc. # 95) is part of the record for trial. 3. The parties agree that the subsequent paragraphs constitute certain additional undisputed facts that are part of the record for trial. 4. Applying the parties’ previous stipulation (Doc. # 95) on the statute of limitations, the effect of tolling, and each plaintiffs opt-in dates, the time periods for which the plaintiff class members can seek overtime damages is as set forth below. 5. Applying the parties’ previous agreement on the method of calculating overtime (see Doc. # 95), each plaintiff class member’s regular rate of pay for purposes of said calculation is as set forth below. 6. The information set forth below regarding the paid time off (“PTO”) taken by the plaintiff class members is derived from pay stubs that have been produced in this litigation. These figures are included herein so the parties and the Court are not burdened by the review and introduction of pages and pages of pay stubs. However, this does not preclude Defendant from introducing at trial additional evidence of other PTO or other leave taken by plaintiff class members. Director — PMO A.) Plaintiff Barge may seek overtime damages for work performed from July 6, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Barge’s regular rate is $49.82. Member Activities Department Heads A.) Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood may seek overtime damages for work performed from February 8, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood’s regular rate is $17.55 for this time period. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 16 hours during the time period from April 1, 2004 through April 15, 2004 (LTF 000063); 8 hours during the time period April 16, 2004 through April 30, 2004 (LTF 0000064); 16 hours during the time period from May 1, 2004 through May 15, 2004 (LTF 000065); 40 hours from May 16, 2004 through May 31, 2004 (LTF 000066); and 32 hours from August 1, 2004 through August 15, 2004 (LTF 000071). Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood may also seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Baden-Winterwood’s regular rate is $12.68 for this time period. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 8 hours during the time period from November 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005 (LTF 000107). B.) Plaintiff Brevard may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Brevard’s regular rate is $15.92. C.) Plaintiff (Young) Bird may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Bird’s regular rate is $11.86. D.) Plaintiff Chaney may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 31, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Chaney’s regular rate is $18.45. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 40 hours during the time period from July 16, 2004 through July 31, 2004 (LTF 000371). E.) Plaintiff Davenport may seek overtime damages for work performed from January 26, 2004 through February 14, 2004. Plaintiff Davenport’s regular rate is $13.59. F.) Plaintiff Gregorich may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Gregorich’s regular rate is $24.65 for this time period. Plaintiff Gregorich may also seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Gregorich’s regular rate is $20.75 for this time period. G.) Plaintiff House may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff House’s regular rate is $16.18 for this time period. Plaintiff House may also seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 16, 2005. Plaintiff House’s regular rate is $12.73 for this time period. H.) Plaintiff Ipema (fka Visser) may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Ipema’s regular rate is $14.73. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 24 hours during the time period from November 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005 (LTF 001999). I.) Plaintiff Nutinsky may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Nutinsky’s regular rate is $11.96. His pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 16 hours during the time period from May 1, 2004 through May 15, 2004 (LTF 001629); and 30 hours during the time period from August 1, 2004 through August 15, 2004 (LTF 001635). J.) Plaintiff Schroeder may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Schroeder’s regular rate is $13.98. K.) Plaintiff Seals may seek unpaid wages and overtime damages for work performed from August 1, 2005 through October 24, 2005. Plaintiff Seals’s regular rate is $13.38. In making the stipulation with respect to Ms. Seals, Life Time Fitness is not waiving any right to appeal the Court’s decision (Doc. # s 105 and 110) with respect to Ms. Seals’ entitlement to unpaid wages or overtime damages. Life Café Department Heads A.) Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff Barclay may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Barclay’s regular rate is $13.89. Defendant disagrees that Plaintiff Barclay may seek any overtime damages whatsoever because she failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests served November 30, 2006 and otherwise has failed to provide any evidence of the hours she alleges to have worked. B.) Plaintiff Galloway may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Galloway’s regular rate is $19.57 for this time period. Plaintiff Galloway may also seek to recover overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Galloway’s regular rate is $21.83 for this time period. C.) Plaintiff Konieczny may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Konieczny’s regular rate is $23.09 for this time period. D.) Plaintiff Mann may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Mann’s regular rate is $26.95 for this time period. E.) Plaintiff Mendez may seek overtime damages for work performed from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Plaintiff Mendez’s regular rate is $15.97 for this time period. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 72 hours during the time period from August 1, 2004 through August 15, 2004 (LTF 001519). Plaintiff Mendez may also seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Mendez’s rate is $15.85 for this time period. Life Spa Department Heads A.) Plaintiff Erdman may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Erdman’s regular rate is $17.34. B.) Plaintiff Fuss may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Fuss’s regular rate is $18.87. C.) Plaintiff Lloyd may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Lloyd’s regular rate is $16.30. His pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 8 hours during the time period from November 1, 2005 through November 15, 2005 (LTF 001205). D.) Plaintiff McCarthy may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff McCarthy’s regular rate is $21.31. Her pay stubs reflect the following PTO was taken during this time period: 32 hours during the time period from November 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005 (LTF 001393). E.) Plaintiff Richards may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Richard’s regular rate is $27.76. F.) Plaintiff Weiler may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff Weiler’s regular rate is $18.06. G.) Plaintiff West may seek overtime damages for work performed from October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. Plaintiff West’s regular rate is $27.94. 7. The parties agree that the foregoing stipulations may be used for purposes of this litigation and this litigation only. (Doc. # 119) (emphases in original). Y. Bench Trial The parties presented two issues at trial. First, whether the testimony of the testifying plaintiffs was representative of the nontestifying plaintiffs. Second, the amount of unpaid wages, if any, Plaintiffs were due. A. Witness Summaries At the bench trial, Plaintiffs presented testimony from six witnesses on behalf of themselves and as representatives of non-testifying class members: two Member Activities Department Heads, Amy Baden-Winterwood and Teresa Chaney; two Life Spa Department Heads, Jennifer McCarthy and Marcia Richards; and, two Life Café Department Heads, Scott Konieczny and Judith Galloway. Plaintiffs also presented as witnesses the Director of PMO Victor Barge and part-time Member Activities Department Head Tina Seals. Defendant presented testimony from two management employees, Kevin Logan and Doug Ringeisen. A summary of each witness follows. 1. Plaintiff Victor Barge The first witness called by Plaintiffs was Victor Barge who testified via video-conference. Barge worked at LTF as the Director of PMO from July 6, 2004 until September 1, 2005. Barge stated that it had been stipulated that for purposes of this proceeding the period in dispute is from July 6, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Barge testified that he managed projects with the information technology department at multiple LTF facilities as well as its corporate offices. Barge’s location of employment was the corporate office in Minnesota. Barge was not required to punch a time clock at work. There were no minimum or maximum hour requirements for his position, Barge claimed he worked as much as necessary to accomplish his duties. He estimated that during the period in dispute he worked between 45 and 60 hours a week, an estimate that did not include breaks for lunch. He was not paid overtime during this period. Barge testified that he typically worked Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., that he sometimes worked nights and weekends, and that it was common for him to log in to his work computer and take calls from home both before and after work. He also testified that the work he did could not have been delegated to someone else. Barge stated that neither Kevin Logan or Doug Ringeisen would have personal knowledge of the hours he worked. On cross-examination, Barge testified that he got along with his supervisor, Brent Zempel, most of the time. Barge said that he believed he was efficient and diligent in performing his duties. Barge testified that he would either eat lunch at his desk or take an hour break and go out for lunch. He further testified that once a week, for an hour to an hour and one-half, he would take a break to workout at a LTF facility. Barge testified that he did not rely on any documents to come up with the estimation of the amount of hours that he worked during the relevant time period, thus he was unable to recall precisely how many hours he worked in a given week. He testified that he was “pretty positive” he never worked fewer than 45 hours in a week. On redirect examination, Barge clarified again that his lunch and workout breaks were not included in his estimate of the amount of hours he worked during the relevant time period. 2. Plaintiff Teresa Chaney Teresa Chaney was the second witness called by Plaintiffs. On direct and redirect examination, she testified to the following. She was employed by LTF from 1999 until August 2, 2005 at its club in Novi, Michigan. The parties stipulated that the relevant time period for her employment was May 31, 2004 through August 23, 2004. Chaney testified about her daily, weekly, and monthly job duties as the Member Activities Department Head during the relevant time period. Her daily duties included supervision of all member activities classes, hiring and training instructors, scheduling, tracking employees’ hours, and processing daily payments made to LTF, and payroll. Additionally, Chaney completed a daily walkthrough check of the member activities area of the club. Chaney’s weekly tasks included turning in objectives and attending General Managers’ and Department Heads’ meetings. On a monthly basis, Chaney reconciled the department budget and processed payroll, and she met with all Michigan Member Activities Department Heads. Chaney also coordinated special events for the club, including birthday parties, a “daddy-daughter” dance, a Halloween event, and an open house to promote summer camp. Chaney testified that she was on call 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to substitute for instructors or other staff who called off work. Chaney testified that she averaged between 50 and 60 hours of work per week during the relevant time period, including her regular duties and supervision of summer camp Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. She did not include lunch or other breaks in her calculations. On cross examination, Chaney testified that she did not know the square footage of the club, the number of club members, the percent of capacity at which the club operated, the average number of daily member card “swipes,” the penetration rate for her area of the club, or the square footage of her department. Chaney testified that she decided what her own daily schedule would be and that her tasks varied from day to day. Chaney also testified that she could not exactly recreate the hours she worked during the relevant time period, nor did anyone record her hours, but she recalled that she did take a one week vacation during the relevant time period. Member Activities Department Heads at other LTF clubs, Chaney said, likely worked hours within the range she specified, but she could not provide direct evidence for that comparison aside from LTF’s Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”). She agreed that member activity programming varied from club to club and that she made no visits to other LTF clubs during the relevant time period. Chaney also said that the size of the department and number of staff to supervise might affect hours for Member Activities Department Heads at other clubs, but the clubs’ square footage, number of members, or number of swipes would not create a direct impact. 3. Plaintiff Scott Konieczny Scott Konieczny was the third witness called by Plaintiffs. On direct examination Konieczny testified that he worked at LTF from April 2002 through October 2004 as a Life Café Department Head at the Algonquin, Illinois club for six months and at the Warrenville, Illinois club the remaining time. Konieczny testified on direct examination that he ran the café as if it were his own business. Konieczny stated that he was required to follow LTF policy in food preparation and in the appearance of the restaurant. He was responsible for managing the staff, for all of the hiring, training, paperwork, and purchasing for the café. He testified that he might have been able to delegate some of these duties, but he did not delegate anything that could reflect on the cafe’s bottom line. Konieczny testified that he was required to attend monthly meetings with other Life Café Department Heads. He also was responsible for payroll and daily bank deposits, which he took to the bank. He further stated that he was responsible for all managerial duties related to the summer bistro, which is another café within the club attached to the outside pool area. The summer bistro is usually open from Memorial Day until Labor Day. Last, whenever the employee scheduled to open or close the café was absent, Konieczny was required to go to work to complete their duties. Konieczny testified that at the beginning of his employment, the Director of Café Operations told him that his position required between 45 to 55 hours of work per week. LTF did not keep any records of Konieczny’s hours; he made his own schedule, and typically worked between 50 and 60 hours per week. Konieczny testified that he took two days off work in July 2004 for the birth of his son. He usually worked through his lunch time, eating while he was either at work or on call to work. He testified that he was available to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He said the clubs at Warrenville and Algonquin both had around 14,000 members. He testified that did not know Kevin Logan or Doug Ringeisen and said they would not personally know how many hours he worked. Last, he testified that individuals with similar duties at other clubs were, or should have been, working between 50 and 60 hours a week as well. On cross-examination, Konieczny acknowledged that the period in dispute for purposes of this proceeding is from May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004. He stated that during this period he came into work on Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. and worked until between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Konieczny testified that he became more skilled and efficient the longer he worked as a Life Café Department Head, but he did not believe that being more skilled and efficient would not significantly decrease the number of hours necessary to accomplish a Life Café Department Head’s duties. Konieczny testified he was not familiar with the work habits of Christopher Mann, Angela Mendez, or Jennifer Barclay. There was no redirect examination of Konieczny. 4. Plaintiff Tina Seals The fourth witness called by Plaintiffs was Tina Seals, who worked for LTF at its Champlin, Minnesota location from August 1998 until August or October 24, 2005. The parties stipulated that the relevant time period for her was August 1, 2005 through October 24, 2005. Seals testified on direct and redirect examination that she held the position of Summer Camp Lead Counselor until the first week of September 2005, thereafter she was a Members Activities Department Head. Seals’s duties as a Members Activities Department Head included supervising and scheduling all member activities classes and staff, payroll, promoting classes within the club and to the community, responding to voice-mails and emails, participating in weekly and monthly meetings, and ensuring that the department stayed within its budget and met monthly goals. Seals was a part-time employee in her role as Members Activities Department Head, and her supervisor, Justin Sortman, scheduled her hours in four hour daily blocks. Seals testified that despite her scheduled hours she averaged between 50 and 60 hours per week during summer camp and between 30 and 40 hours per week otherwise. On cross-examination, Seals testified that although she did not always complete her duties on the day that they should have been completed, over the course of a normal week she completed all of her basic duties within a 30 to 40 hour work week. Seals testified that she could have done a better job and met the club’s goals for her if she had worked between 50 and 60 hours each week. Seals did not recall the exact hours she worked during the relevant time period, and no one kept track of her actual hours, but she consulted her pay stubs for the relevant time period to determine the days she worked and the hours for which she was paid. 5. Plaintiff Amy Baden-Winterwood Amy Baden-Winterwood was the fifth witness called by Plaintiffs. She was employed by LTF from July 1999 through February 2009 as a Member Activities Department Head in the Columbus, Ohio Easton location. Baden-Winterwood testified that her role as a Department Head included the following: preparing monthly business plans with goals and objectives; recruiting, hiring, training, evaluating, and firing a staff of up to 35 part-time employees; maintaining the member activities budget; responding to email and voicemail inquiries usually within the hour but always within the company policy of 24 hours; developing, promoting, and recruiting participants for programs such as belly dancing and “scootercize”; and attending and participating in one-on-one meetings, weekly meetings, various regional meetings, and national meetings in person and via conference calls. In addition to these job specific tasks, the witness testified that all employees were encouraged and required to engage in customer service, to get to know clients and to develop a relationship with them, taking much time away from other job duties as necessary. Baden-Winterwood stated that she interacted with other Member Activities Department Heads via the various meetings she attended. In those meetings, the Member Activities Department Heads would discuss how to grow the department, how to maintain the budget, how to run programs, various corporate expectations, and corporate philosophies. She testified that the corporate philosophy was one similar to McDonald’s. Just as one could purchase the same hamburger from a McDonald’s in Texas or a McDonald’s in Maine, one should experience the same atmosphere in each LTF facility. The number of hours per week BadenWinterwood worked depended on the season. From January through May, she worked from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday hours during those months were from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. During the summer months the witness testified she worked from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., or when the last summer camper left. Baden-Winterwood testified that she would be on call at all times, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; available by telephone for any need that might arise when she was not physically in the club. The SOP for Member Activities Department Heads, distributed by LTF, stated 46 minimum hours should be worked per week. Baden-Winterwood stated that Member Activities Department Heads were expected to work beyond the 46 hours suggested by the SOP. She was expected to word as long it took to complete the required tasks. She created her scheduled hours and posted the hours for other employees to view. Baden-Winter-wood estimated that during the high traffic time of January through the summer, and during the relevant time period of February 8, 2004 through August 23, 2004, she worked 45 to 60 hours per week. That time also included a three day white-water rafting trip she coordinated and lead. Her hours during the relevant time period were 8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. Monday through Friday until 6:00 p.m., and rotating Saturday shifts 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. once or twice per month. She stated that during the October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005 time period she worked about 45 to 55 hours per week, Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Fridays and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or to 4:00 p.m. Baden-Winterwood stated she could not do her job in 40 hours per week and that she was expected to work at least 46 hours per week. Baden-Winterwood testified she occasionally observed Member Activities Department Heads in other clubs in Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and in Ohio at the Cincinnati and Sawmill clubs. She helped and worked with the new manager in Cincinnati, Ohio. She went to Indiana to evaluate a manager there. She went to Michigan for meetings and took her son to camp there. Baden-Winterwood stated that all of the other Member Activities Department Heads with whom she interacted had the same job responsibilities and would likewise not be able to complete their jobs within 40 hours per week but rather likely worked similar hours to herself, 45 to 55 hours in the fall and 45 to 60 hours from January through the summer months. On cross-examination, Baden-Winter-wood testified that during the relevant time periods the square footage of the Easton club was 98,000 square feet. She did not know at what percentage of capacity the club was, but did believe the membership level during the relevant times was about 8,000 to 8,500. Baden-Winterwood testified that she was not physically at the facility during all the hours that the member activities department was open. In addition, she trained other employees on how to complete some of her responsibilities. Comparing herself to other Member Activities Department Heads, Baden-Winter-wood testified she was at a high skill level and high efficiency level and that other Department Heads’ skill levels may vary from hers. The witness did not believe the level of skill or efficiency a Department Head might have would reduce the hours required to work to complete his or her job each week. Baden-Winterwood testified that she created her schedule and that she, more or less, worked the hours scheduled. She stated that she was the best source of knowledge of her work hours. The witness also stated that she did not work out during her scheduled shift nor did she take lunch breaks. After implementation of the SOP, the witness said she felt more accountable for her hours because she was required to take an annual test based upon the .SOP, but she believed her actual hours worked did not change. She estimated the hours worked based upon the fact that she created her own schedule for the ten years she worked at LTF, but did not have a specific schedule to prepare for her testimony. Continuing on cross-examination, the witness testified that when she visited clubs in Michigan and Minnesota she did not observe a Member Activities Department Head for an entire day completing their job duties. She did observe at the Sawmill and Cincinnati clubs for a full day, however. She testified that she observed the Indiana Member Activities Manager for about four or five hours. Baden-Winterwood testified that she did not have first-hand knowledge of any of the other Member Activities Department Heads actual hours worked per week. On redirect examination, Baden-Winter-wood testified that the test she was given covering the consents of the SOP was given to all Members Activities Heads across the country. The witness also clarified that the work camping trip was taken in July 2004. 6. Plaintiff Judith Galloway The sixth witness called by Plaintiffs was Judith Galloway. She was employed by LTF at its Algonquin, Illinois location from April 2003 though August 2003, and again from December 2003 though April 2009. During the first period of employment she worked as an Assistant Life Café Department Head, and during the subsequent employment period she worked as the Life Café Department Head. The Algonquin location operates both a café inside the facility and an outdoor bistro near the pool during the summer and early autumn months. Galloway’s responsibilities included managing the café and bistro as if they were her own businesses; interviewing, hiring, training, and firing other café department employees; payroll; creating work schedules; managing inventory of the café; invoicing; marketing, and managing promotions for the café; processing credit card sales and making deposits to the bank; maintaining an appropriate level of cleanliness; and creating and maintaining personal relationships with LTF members. Galloway indicated that she was unable to delegate most of her duties due to management’s expectation that she perform those duties herself. Galloway testified that the SOP stated that the Life Café Department Heads were expected to work 45 hours per week. Each Life Café Department Head received the same SOP, and was expected to work the same amount of hours per week. Galloway testified that all Department Heads were expected to work extra hours if necessary to carry out their duties. She stated that she scheduled herself the required 55 hours each week, and identified schedules that she produced from approximately 2004 through 2006 that reflected those hours. Despite being scheduled for 55 hours per week, Galloway testified that she worked more because some of her duties were very time-consuming and because she attempted to maintain her budget by working shifts that could be covered by a subordinate. Each Life Café Department Head was assigned a target percentage of their budget for payroll, and by performing certain duties herself instead of scheduling an hourly employee to do them, Galloway was better able to stay within her target payroll percentage. The time periods at issue in this case with regards to Galloway are May 16, 2004 through August 23, 2004, and October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. During those periods, Galloway testified that she worked on average from 60 to 80 hours per week. She testified that she worked so much during the relevant 2004 time period because it was her first bistro season and she was required to learn how to use the equipment and manage both the café and the bistro at the same time. With regard to the relevant 2005 time period, she testified that even though the bistro was closed for the year, she worked so many hours because she was collaborating with other departments on holiday and charitable projects. Galloway stated that during other time periods of employment, she still worked at least 70 hours per week. The work time estimated by Galloway does not include break time; she stated that she was not really able to take breaks because she was too busy working. Galloway testified that she interacted with Department Heads from other club locations during monthly meetings, weekly conference calls, and occasional visits to other clubs. Based upon her experience, her interactions with others, and the expectations of LTF management, she stated that she did not believe that a Life Café Department Head could perform all of the duties in a 40 hour work week. She stated that it is likely that other Life Café Department Heads would have to work hours similar to hers in order to complete their jobs On cross-examination, Defendant’s attorney asked Galloway about the SOP that was introduced into evidence by Plaintiffs’ counsel (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3). Galloway testified that she remembered her SOP stating that 55 hours of work per week was expected. Galloway testified that she believed that other Department Heads operated with varying degrees of skill, efficiency, and experience. She disagreed with the assertion that this would lead to a variance in hours necessary for other Department Heads to complete their jobs. Galloway stated that she may have occasionally taken a lunch break during the relevant time periods, but only when her General Manager took her and other LTF employees to lunch. Galloway has six children, all of whom lived with her during the relevant time period. She testified that she did not generally have to leave work to tend to their issues because her husband took care of the children while she was working. She stated that while there may have been an occasional problem for which she had to leave work, she could not remember if any occurred during the relevant time periods. Galloway was shown her interrogatory answers, in which she indicated that she worked on average between 60 and 80 hours per week, and her deposition testimony from a companion case before a court in another state that indicated that she worked between 55 and 60. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9.) Galloway explained that she would schedule herself 55 to 60 hours per week in a normal week, but that no week was ever normal and she always worked between 60 and 80 hours per week. Defense counsel also pointed to another part of Galloway’s deposition in which she stated that she worked on average between 55 and 60 hours per week. Finally, at one point Galloway testified that she worked between 35 to 60 hours per week. On redirect, Galloway testified that her statement about working 35 to 60 hour per week was in reference to a time period in 2008 after she realized that she was not going to get the promotion for which she had been hoping, and was less motivated to perform up to her previous standards. Galloway is not seeking overtime for any work performed during 2008. 7. Plaintiff Jennifer McCarthy Jennifer McCarthy was the seventh witness called by Plaintiffs. On direct and redirect examination, McCarthy testified to the following. She worked for LTF from June 2003 until July 2007. During the majority of her tenure she was a Life Spa Department Head. In this role she was in charge of hiring and firing employees, marketing, inventory, and ordering products and supplies. She was also responsible for implementing the directions in the SOP. McCarthy testified that she usually worked from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and also on Saturdays and Sundays. McCarthy stated that the time period of her employment relevant to this proceeding is October 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. During the first half of this period McCarthy worked at the Fairfax, Virginia facility and during the second half she worked at the Centerville, Virginia facility. McCarthy testified that she believed that the number of members that belonged to an LTF club had little relevance to the amount of business for the spa. McCarthy testified that she was expected to work a minimum of 45 hours and as many hours as it took to get her job done. She made a schedule of her hours at the beginning of the week and changed it whenever she worked different hours than she was scheduled. She read from her schedule which is marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6. This schedule listed her as working 63, 63, 63, 56, 58, 22, and 36 hours per week during the relevant time period. McCarthy testified that the last two weeks were shorter because they were during the Thanksgiving holiday. On cross-examination, McCarthy testified that she never took lunch breaks and that the hours listed on her schedule were accurate. She also stated that she never took a break to workout. She testified that all of the clubs operated similarly; not because they were all managed by her, but because that was the business model that LTF tried to create by adopting the SOP. 8. Plaintiff Marcia Richards As their eighth witness, Plaintiffs called Marcia Richards, who testified that she was employed with LTF from July 1999 through January 2006 and was a Life Spa Department Head from 2002 until 2006 at the Novi, Michigan and Commerce, Michigan clubs. The Spa Department is a full service salon for hair and skin care, body treatments, massage, and retail products that is open to members and non-members. Richards stated that her job responsibilities included the following: recruiting and hiring spa staff; training the spa commissioned employees and spa front desk hourly employees on the SOP; financial duties such as budget, payroll, and inventory; ordering inventory and conducting inventory counts; attending meetings in person and via conference calls; and responding to email and voicemail inquiries. Regarding meetings, Richards testified that she engaged in monthly regi