Clark v. Shop24 Global, LLC (77 F. Supp. 3d 660, 2015)

OPINION & ORDER

JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment (docs. 66 & 67). For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT IN PART AND/DENY IN PART the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 66) and DENY the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 67).

1. Background

The Plaintiff, Joseph Clark, is a former employee of the Defendants. Defendant Shop24 USA, the predecessor to Defendant Shop24 Global, supplied customers with “self-contained, totally automated and refrigerated convenience store[s].” In 2008, Defendant Shop24 USA hired Matthew Reckner as its first American employee. Reckner Dep. at 7, doc. 67-2. Reckner worked to develop Defendant Shop24 USA’s infrastructure and expand its business. Id. at 7-9.

As Defendant Shop24 USA expanded its business, management recognized the need to hire a repair technician to perform maintenance on its vending machines. Id. at 9. After an interview with Reckner, Defendant Shop24 USA hired the Plaintiff in May 2009. Clark Dep. at 22, doc. 67-1. Shortly after being hired, the Plaintiff traveled to Belgium to Defendant Shop24 USA’s headquarters where he attended training on the maintenance and repair of the vending machines. Id. at 25-26. Following his training, the Plaintiff returned to his home office in Columbus, Ohio. Id. at 27. Reckner also worked in the Columbus office and was the Plaintiffs supervisor. Defs.’ Answer to Interrogs. 9, doc. 67-3.

The Plaintiffs job responsibilities are the subject of dispute in this case. It is clear from the record that he performed a wide variety of tasks, including: repairing and installing vending machines, training other repairmen, responding to customer service calls, creating a user manual for the vending machines, and maintaining an inventory of mechanical and electronic components. Clark Dep. at 43, 46, 63-66, 89, 96, 172, 178. The Plaintiff often traveled around the country to perform these responsibilities. Reckner Dep. at 30.

The Plaintiffs work hours were long and variable. He estimated that his average work week was 70 hours, but that some weeks he worked 100 hours, up to 18 hours a day. Clark Dep. at 125. As Defendant Shop24 Global’s employee manual explained:

The normal work day is eight (8) hours, and forty (40) hours represents a normal work week .... While you are generally expected to work the number of hours stated above, Company does not guarantee that you will actually be able to perform all of your work duties in this amount of time. You are expected to put in the amount of time over 40 hours per week necessary to complete your job duties and occasionally, in rare circumstances, substantial extra work will be required. If you are overburdened with work and unable to complete your assignments with a moderate amount of additional work each week, please speak to your supervisor; however, with more responsibility and increased pay, usually comes a greater work load and more time spent working.

Exempt employees are not paid overtime for hours worked above 40 hours per week; a moderate amount of expected overtime is built into your compensation package as a salaried employee.

■ Def.’s Manual at 8-9, doc. 66-3.

In July 2009, following-a long service trip, the Plaintiff questioned Reckner regarding his entitlement to overtime and his classification as an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Clark Dep. at 337. Reckner initially stated that the Plaintiff was a nonexempt employee, but later clarified that the Plaintiff was actually exempt. Id. at 337-38. Consequently, the Plaintiff did not receive overtime pay.

In June 2010, Defendant Shop24 USA sold its assets to Defendant Shop24 Global. Setness Aff. at ¶ 8, doc. 66-6. Defendant Shop24 USA’s employees, including the Plaintiff, became employees of Defendant Shop24 Global. At that time, Ken Horner became CEO of Defendant Shop24 Global. Horner Dep. at 6, doc. 67-4. Although corporate ownership changed, the Plaintiffs job responsibilities did not. Clark Dep. at 83.

The Plaintiff continued to work long hours over the next year. In the summer of 2011, Defendant Shop24 Global decided to hire an additional technician. Id. at 28-29. Reckner hired Anthony Weygandt as a service technician. Weygandt Dep. at 7-8. Clark trained Weygandt in maintaining and repairing the vending machines. Id. at 11-12.

In early 2012, the Plaintiff began researching laws concerning overtime payment. Clark Dep. at 256. After reviewing information regarding exemption classifications under the FLSA, the Plaintiff emailed Marvin Setness, an administrator for Defendant Shop24 Global, concerning his exempt classification under the FLSA. Id. at 163, 255-56. The Plaintiff made a similar enquiry to Reckner. Id. at 256. Reckner informed the Plaintiff that he was unaware of the FLSA’s classification system, but, after speaking with management, opined that the Plaintiff was exempt because of his job title. Id. at 256-59.

Following this exchange, Defendant Shop24 Global presented the Plaintiff with the opportunity to switch from a salaried position to an hourly position. Id. at 259-60. Reckner explained that, if the Plaintiff transitioned to an hourly position, he would no longer receive a salary or be considered a manager, his hourly base pay would decrease, and he would be ineligible to receive a bonus. Id. at 259-61. The Plaintiff decided to continue his position as a salaried employee. Id. at 261.

In early September 2012, while still employed by Defendant Shop24 Global, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint (doc. 1) in which he alleged the Defendants violated the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Around the same time, Defendant Shop24 Global hired an additional service technician, Leland Palmer, to keep up with its expanding business. Weygandt Dep. at 32.

Later that September, Weygandt and Palmer traveled to Oklahoma City to install a vending machine. Clark Dep. at 102. Clark traveled to Oklahoma City several days later to assist with the installation. Id. The three men went to dinner together after work. Id. at 103-04. With Palmer’s prompting, the Plaintiff described to his co-workers his contentious relationship with Reckner. Id. at 107-09. According to Weygandt, the Plaintiff stated that he was going to try to “oust or overthrow” Defendant Shop24 Global’s management, including Reckner. Weygandt Dep. at 36-37. Further, according to Weygandt, the Plaintiff indicated that he would destroy his laptop and other technical documents if Defendant Shop24 Global “trie[d] to do anything to him.” Id. Wey-gandt reported these comments to Reck-ner. Id. at 40.

After confirming the details of the conversation with Weygandt, Reckner informed Horner, Defendant Shop24 Global’s CEO, of the Plaintiff’s comments. Horner Dep. at 22, doc. 67-4. Based on the Plaintiffs comments, Horner fired the Plaintiff. Id. at 22-23.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint (doc. 1) on September 4, 2012. The Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (doc. 55) alleges multiple violations under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Constitution. Count One alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an exempt employee and failed to pay him overtime as required by the FLSA. Count Two alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA when they retaliated against him for engaging in “protected activity” under the FLSA. Count Three alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages under § 4111.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Count Four alleges that the Defendants failed to maintain wage and hour records as required by Article II, Section 34(a) of the Ohio Constitution.

The parties’ motions for partial summary judgment are fully briefed and ripe for resolution.

II. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper if the evidentiary material in the record show that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir.2009). The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which may be accomplished by demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case on which it would bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481, 485 (6th Cir.2005).

The “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Longaberger, 586 F.3d at 465. “Only disputed material facts, those ‘that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,’ will preclude summary judgment.” Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 702 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Accordingly, the nonmoving party must present “significant probative evidence” to demonstrate that “there is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir.1993).

A district court considering a motion for summary judgment may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. Daugherty, 544 F.3d at 702; Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 379 (6th Cir.1994). Rather, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must determine whether “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may permissibly be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992). However, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir.2009).

III. Discussion

The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on Counts 1, 3, and 4 of his Third Amended Complaint. According to the Plaintiff, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Defendants improperly classified him as an exempt employee, which resulted in the denial of overtime compensation to which he was lawfully entitled under the FLSA and the Ohio Revised Code. Further, in the Plaintiffs view, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Defendants violated Article II, Section 34(a) of the Ohio Constitution because of their failure to maintain proper wage and hours records.

In contrast, the Defendants move for summary judgment on Count II of the Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff cannot establish causation between his protected conduct and his termination. • The Defendants also identify three discrete legal issues to which they believe they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law:'

(1) That any overtime compensation to which Plaintiff is entitled must be calculated pursuant to the fluctuating workweek a/k/a half-time method;

(2) That RDO Equipment Co. was not Plaintiffs “employer” under either the FLSA or Ohio law; and

(3) That Shop24 Global, LLC is not liable for any overtime compensation to which Plaintiff is entitled (in the event that he does not qualify as- an exempt administrative employee at trial) prior to June 30, 2010 when it acquired the assets of Shop24 USA, Inc. via an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 1-2.

The Court addresses each of these issues in turn.

A. Count One — FLSA—Unpaid, Overtime

The parties offer competing arguments related to Count One of the Third Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on Count One in its entirety, arguing that the record demonstrates that he was misclassified as an exempt employee under the FLSA. In contrast, the Defendants maintain that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the Plaintiffs classification as an exempt employee. Further, the Defendants argue, if a jury determines that the Plaintiff was misclassified as an exempt employee, any overtime compensation to which the employee is entitled must be calculated pursuant to the fluctuating workweek method.

1. Classification as an Exempt Employee

First, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants improperly classified him as an exempt employee and failed to pay him overtime compensation to which he was legally entitled. Reviewing the FLSA’s categorical exemptions, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants cannot establish that the administrative, learned professional, or executive exemptions applied to him. In the Plaintiffs view, the evidence establishes that he was a “blue-collar worker” wfiose primary job function was to service and repair large vending machines. Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 10.

In response, the Defendants maintain that whether an employee is properly classified as exempt under the FLSA is a highly fact-intensive inquiry. The Defendants emphasize that the record contains significant evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiffs primary job duties were related to the Defendants’ management or general business operations, consistent with those of an administrative employee as defined by the FLSA.

“Under the Fair Labor Standards Act ..., employers must pay their employees ... overtime for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek.” Misew icz v. City of Memphis, Term., 771 F.3d 332, 333-34 (6th Cir.2014) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)). Some employees are not eligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA because they fall within certain exemptions to the FLSA. Little v. Belle Tire Distribs., Inc., 588 Fed.Appx. 424, 426-27 (6th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 213). Specifically, “section 207 ... shall not apply with respect to ... any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). “The decision of whether an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation provisions under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) is primarily a fact question.” Schaefer v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 358 F.3d 394, 407 (6th Cir.2004) (Suhrheinrich, J., concurring) (citing Ale v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 269 F.3d 680, 688-89, 691 (6th Cir.2001); Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326, 330 (5th Cir.2000)).

Exemptions “are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them.” Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496, 501 (6th Cir.2007). “The employer bears the burden of establishing the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and the employer satisfies this burden only by providing ‘clear and affirmative evidence that the employee meets every requirement of an exemption.’ ” Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 847 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting Thomas, 506 F.3d at 501). Under this standard, however, the evidentiary burden of summary .judgment remains unchanged. Thomas, 506 F.3d at 502.

a. Administrative Exemption

Under the FLSA, the administrative exemption applies when an employee meets the following factors:

(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week ...;

(2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and

(3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(l)-(3). It is undisputed that the Plaintiff satisfied the first element of this test. Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 10. The Plaintiff maintains that he did not satisfy either the second or third element of the administrative exemption.

i. Office or Nonmanual Work Directly Related to the Management or General Business Operations of the Employer

In analyzing the second element, courts “focus on evidence regarding the actual day-to-day activities of the employee rather than more general job descriptions contained in resumes, position descriptions, and performance evaluations.” Schaefer, 358 F.3d at 400 (citing Ale, 269 F.3d at 688-89). Federal regulations provide a number of factors for consideration when determining an employee’s primary duty, including:

the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; the amount of time spent performing exempt work; the employee’s relative freedom from direct supervision; and the relationship between the employee’s salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.

Id. § 541.700(a); Ultimately, “[d]etermi-nation of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee’s job as a whole.” Id.

To satisfy the second element, “an employee must perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business, as distinguished, for example, from working on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(a).

Work directly related to management or general business operations includes, but is not limited to, work in functional areas such as tax; finance; accounting; budgeting; auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing; procurement; advertising; marketing; research; safety and health; personnel management; human resources; employee benefits; labor relations; public relations, government relations; computer network, internet and database administration; Ie-gal and regulatory compliance; and similar activities.

Id. § 541.201(b).

The record before the Court is mixed and is consistent with the competing accounts offered by the parties. On the one hand, the record reflects that Defendant Shop24 USA hired the Plaintiff as a technician to service and repair the Defendants’ vending machines. Reckner Dep. at 9-14. After being hired, the Plaintiff traveled to Europe where he trained extensively in the installation, maintenance, and repair of the Defendants’ vending machines. Clark Dep. at 25-27. In his deposition, the Plaintiff testified that he spent a significant portion of his time installing, maintaining, and repairing the vending machines, particularly prior to the hiring of additional technicians. Id. at 63-66, 89. When not performing manual labor on-site, the Plaintiff would work in the Defendants’ shop repairing and rebuilding various components of the vending machines. Id. at 74-75. These facts are consistent with the Plaintiffs position that his primary duty was the performance of manual labor not directly related to the management or general business operations of the Defendant. In this account, the Plaintiffs work involved “repetitive operations with [his] hands, physical skill and energy” based on “skills and knowledge” acquired “through apprenticeships and on-the-job training,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.3.

On the other hand, the record includes support for the Defendants’ position that the Plaintiffs primary duty was his work as the Defendants’ “parts and service manager,” taking care of anything to do with “keeping the [vending machines] up and running.” Horner Dep. at 9-10. According to Horner, the Plaintiff:

[w]as responsible for the parts and service aspect of our business. So as part of those duties he would determine what kinds of parts we were going to store, how many of those parts we were going to store, just generally everything and anything to do with the parts and the parts inventory.

As the service manager, he would have been responsible to determine the service manual warranties, making sure that stores were up, an installation manual ... handled customer complaints .... [L]ater he would have [hired and fired employees]. He would have determined specs for like belts. He would [have] determined specs for the batteries for the stores.

If there was something going wrong with the stores, he would have figured out what was wrong with the stores and determined a solution. He would have determined a budget for the parts inventory and a budget for service. He would [have] monitored and tracked service calls so that we could determine a good warranty program.

Id. at 10-11.

Further, the Plaintiff interviewed, tested, trained, and supervised the other technicians working for the Defendants. Clark Dep. at 29, 55, 56, 95, 191, 116-117, 223. As the service manager for the Defendants, the Plaintiff provided basic training to customers and responded to customers’ requests for service. Id. at 65-66. On some occasions, the Plaintiff helped customers resolve issues with the vending machines over the phone. Id. at 73-74. On other occasions, the Defendants hired sub-contractors to service their vending machines rather than incur the costs associated with the Plaintiff traveling to the customer’s location and servicing the machines on-site. Id. at 87-89. The Plaintiff would provide those sub-contractors with instructions by phone on how to service the vending machines. Id.

In this account of the facts, the Plaintiff frequently performed the work of an administrative employee. The Plaintiff procured and maintained the inventory of parts for the vending machines; determined a budget for the parts inventory and for servicing the vending machines; and interviewed, tested, trained, and supervised the other technicians working for the Defendants. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(b) (“Work directly related to management or general business operations includes ... accounting, budgeting, ... purchasing, procuring, ... [and] personnel management”).

The Defendants characterize much of the Plaintiffs work as service manager as “quality control,” which federal regulations consider to be “[w]ork directly related to management or general business operations,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.201. Defs.’ Resp. in Opp. at 9-11, doc. 82. The Plaintiff vigorously contests this characterization. See Pl.’s Reply at 6-8, doc. 83. The parties’ dispute over “quality control” misses the forest for the trees. The ultimate issue is whether the Plaintiff “perform[ed] work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the [Defendants’] business.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(a). To aid in a determination of whether requirement is satisfied, federal regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of work, including quality control, which is directly related to management or general business operations. See id. § 541.201(b). In the Defendants’ version of events, the Plaintiffs responsibility for customer service — providing basic training to customers, remotely developing solutions to problems with the vending machines, and directing the implementation of those solutions — was essential to the running of their business. However his work is categorized, the Defendants’ have presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Plaintiffs work as service manager was integral to “the running or servicing of the [Defendants’] business,” id. § 541.201(a).

The record does not support summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on Count One. While the Plaintiff certainly devoted considerable time to installing, repairing, and maintaining the Defendants’ vending machines, the record also contains evidence that the Plaintiff devoted significant time to the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the Defendants or the Defendants’ customers. In short, there is a genuine issue of fact concerning the second element of the administrative employee exemption that a jury, and not the Court, must resolve.

The Plaintiff argues that Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2002) compels a different result. In Bothell, the defendant produced and sold “robotic test and inspection equipment for the data storage industry.” 299 F.3d at 1122. Although' initially an hourly, nonexempt, contract employee, the plaintiff was offered a position as a field service engineer. Id. at 1123. Upon accepting the position as a field service engineer, the plaintiffs work responsibilities did not change, but he became a salaried employee and was considered to be exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions. Id. As a field service engineer, the plaintiff traveled to a client’s facility where he spent most of his time. Id. The plaintiff returned to the defendant’s office “two or three times a week to do paperwork, meet with his supervisors, review new products, and/or pick up supplies.” Id.

The parties offered competing accounts concerning the plaintiffs primary duty. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was their representative to the client and that the plaintiff individually managed the client’s customer account. Id. According to the defendant, as part of the plaintiffs responsibilities, he supervised the installation, repair, and maintenance of the defendant’s equipment. Bothell, 299 F.3d at 1123.

In contrast, the plaintiff asserted that his primary duty was to “install, troubleshoot, and maintain” the defendant’s equipment. Id. at 1124. He testified that:

over a fifty-two week period, he worked with crews to install ten machines, each of which took approximately two weeks: installations, including the paperwork and customer contacts directly associated with those installations, took up approximately .40% of his time. In addition, [he] spent additional time troubleshooting and maintaining the existing machines. The remainder of his time was spent responding to customer calls, learning about systems and procedures, and completing the paperwork required by [the defendant].

Id.

Despite these conflicting accounts, the district court granted judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff satisfied the criteria for the administrative employee exemption. Id. at 1122. In so holding, the district court relied on its finding that the plaintiffs customer service work was “ancillary” to the defendant’s main activities, and therefore, was administrative in nature. Id. at 1126. The Ninth Circuit reversed, observing that “[w]ork relating to customer service of products sold is not necessarily ‘administrative’ work.” Id. The court continued, explaining:

[the defendant] does exist to design, manufacture, and sell test equipment. But, as [the defendant] acknowledges, its equipment is “technologically advanced.” Customers require installation, training, and service assistance in order successfully to operate the equipment and are unlikely to buy such equipment unless there is such assistance. Customer service activities, therefore, go to the heart of [the defendant’s] marketplace offerings, not to the internal administration of [the defendant’s] business (or that of its customers).

Bothell, 299 F.3d at 1126.

Reviewing the parties’ competing factual accounts, the court identified two plausible narratives. Id. at 1128. On one hand, if uncontradicted, the defendant’s evidence indicated 'that the plaintiff was an account manager responsible for staffing, supervision, and billing whose manual labor related to maintaining the defendant’s equipment was insignificant relative to his administrative tasks. Id. 'On the other hand, if uncontradicted, the plaintiffs evidence demonstrated that he was a highly-skilled repairmen assigned to a client to ensure the installation and maintenance of the defendant’s machines with any administrative work being incidental to his manual labor. Id. Consequently, the court of appeals concluded that a fact-specific inquiry was necessary to resolve the issue of the plaintiffs administrative exemption.

The Plaintiff emphasizes the factual similarities between Bothell and the present case, stating “[similarly to Clark, the plaintiff in Bothell spent his time installing new equipment, repairing, and maintaining existing machines, responding to customer calls, and completing paperwork.” PL’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 13. However, the Plaintiff argues, unlike Bothell, the record in the present case does not contain evidence that would support a finding that his primary duty involved the performance of administrative work. Pl.’s Reply at 3. As discussed above, the Court disagrees with this characterization of the record. The evidence presented by the Defendant demonstrates that the Plaintiffs work included activities such as accounting, budgeting, purchasing, procuring, and personnel management, all of which are considered non-manual work directly related to management or general business operation. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(b). As in Bothell, a factual dispute concerning the Plaintiffs primary duty is present in the instant case. Therefore, judgment in favor of either party is inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings.

ii. Discretion and Independent Judgment

The third element of the administrative exemption test is whether an employee’s “primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(3). Federal regulations provide guidance concerning what constitutes “discretion and independent judgment.” See id. § 541.202. “In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered.” Id. § 541.202(a). “The exercise of discretion and independent judgment implies that the employee has authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision. However, employees can exercise discretion and independent judgment even if their decisions or recommendations are reviewed at a higher level.” Id. § 541.202(c). “The exercise of discretion and independent judgment must be more than the use of skill in applying well-established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources.” Id. § 541.202(e).

As with the second element, the record concerning the third element is mixed. The Plaintiff argues that when performing his primary duties as a repairman, he did not exercise discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. In his account, his primary duty as a repairman involved “applying well-established techniques [and] procedures,” id., that he learned from his training in Belgium and previous employment, Clark Dep. at 25-27. Further, in much of his work he was subject to “immediate direction or supervision,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(c). For example, the Plaintiff was required to seek authorization from Reckner before traveling to repair a vending machine on-site. Clark Dep. at 194-95. He also required Reckner’s approval before placing an order for parts necessary to repair and maintain the vending machines. Id. at 219.

The Defendants cite evidence to the contrary. In their version of events, the Plaintiff: helped develop the Defendants’ service contracts, id. at 44-45, 178, 246-47; selected a parts supplier and stocked an inventory of parts estimated to be worth $50,000 to $60,000, id. at 46-47, 165, 166-67; determined the type of response necessary to resolve maintenance problems with the vending machines, id. at 91-94; negotiated with subcontractors regarding the types of services they would provide, id. at 184-86; approved payment of invoices, Clark Dep. at 215-17, 249, 253; provided input and analysis in developing the operator’s guide for the vending machines, id. at 121-22; and developed a test to evaluate applicants for technician positions, id. at 209-10.

Federal regulations identify a number of factors to consider when determining whether an employee exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b). As a general matter, the Plaintiffs responsibility as the parts and service manager for the Defendants could be considered “work that affect[ed] business operations to a substantial degree, even if the [Plaintiffs] assignments [were] related to operation of a particular segment of the business,” id. The specific facts identified by the Defendant are also consistent with other factors under 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b). The Plaintiff “provide[d] consultation or expert advice to management,” id., when he helped the Defendants develop their service contracts. He “carrie[d] out major assignments in conducting the operations of the business” and “committed the [Defendants] in matters that ha[d] significant financial impact,” id., when he selected a parts supplier and stocked an inventory of parts estimated to be worth $50,000 to $60,000. Further he had the authority to “formulate” or “affect ... management policies or operating practices,” id., when he provided input and analysis in developing the operator’s guide for the vending machines and developed a test to evaluate applicants for technician positions.

In some instances, the Plaintiff “ha[d] the authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision,” id. § 541.202(c). The Plaintiff chose the part supplier without immediate direction or supervision. Clark Dep. at 46-47. He had discretion to choose the parts to buy for the Defendants’ inventory, subject to financial approval from management for particularly expensive items. Id. at 166-67. Further, he had the authority to respond to customers’ requests for service and to independently devise and implement solutions to customers’ problems. Id. at 91-94.

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Defendants have presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiffs “primary duty include[d] the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(3). The Court will therefore deny the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to Count One of the Third Amended ’ Complaint.

b. Executive Exemption

The parties offer limited briefing on this issue. The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff qualified for the executive exeeption for the last month of his employment with Defendant Shop24 Global in September 2012. The Plaintiff argues that he did not satisfy the executive exception because he did not customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees. In response, the Defendants assert that, during the month of September 2012, Weygandt and Parker reported to the Plaintiff on a daily basis.

Under the FLSA, an employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity is defined as any employee:

(1) Compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week ...;

(2) Whose primary duty is management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof;

(3) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees; and

(4) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.

29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a). Here, the Plaintiff contends that he did not satisfy the third element of this definition.

The record includes contradictory testimony regarding the Plaintiffs authority over Weygandt and Parker. According to the Plaintiff, he had little, if any, ability to direct the work of Weygandt and Parker. See Clark Dep. at 30-31, 39-40, 51, 94-96, 242 (testifying that Weygandt reported to Reckner; the Plaintiff had no ability to direct Weygandt’s work; the Plaintiff did not have authority to discipline Weygandt); id. at 102-03 (testifying that Parker worked on installing vending machines' at the direction of Reckner, not the Plaintiff). However, the record also includes testimony that Weygandt and Parker reported to the Plaintiff on a regular basis. Palmer Dep. at 10-11, doc. 72-6; Weygandt Dep. at 11-13, doc. 67-5. At the Plaintiffs deposition, the Defendants presented Palmer’s hiring paperwork which listed the Plaintiff as Palmer’s supervisor. Clark Dep.- at 320-21, Ex. 69. In short, these competing factual narratives create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff customarily and regularly directed the work of Weygandt and Parker. This is a classic factual dispute that a jury must resolve at trial. Consequently, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the issue of the Plaintiffs classification as a bona fide executive employee for the month of September 2012.

2. Fluctuating Workweek and Overtime Compensation

The Defendants argues that, in the event a jury finds that the Plaintiff did not qualify for the administrative or executive exemption, any overtime compensation to which the Plaintiff is entitled to under the FLSA should be calculated pursuant to the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method. In support of their argument, the Defendants cite Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 86 L.Ed. 1682 (1942), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 128 n. 22, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), which, in their view, authorizes payment of half-time compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants insist that this half-time method of compensation, rather than a rate of one and a half time, should determine the amount of any overtime compensation to which the Plaintiff is entitled.

The Plaintiff rejects the Defendants’ approach, arguing that he is entitled to overtime compensation calculated at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 207. In the Plaintiffs view, 29 C.F.R. § 778.114 sets forth the conditions that must be satisfied .in order for an employer to calculate overtime compensation by the FWW method. Because the Defendants cannot establish that all of those conditions were met, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

In reply, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs response “ignores the legal basis” for their argument. Defs.’ Reply at 5, doc. 76. Drawing the Court’s attention to their initial motion for partial summary judgment, the Defendants maintain that Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, rather than 29 C.F.R. § 778.114, is the basis of their argument for the application of the FWW method. In their view, Mis- sel authorizes the calculation of overtime compensation in accordance with the FWW method, independent of 29 C.F.R. § 778.114.

The FLSA provides “time and pay requirements for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.” Mitchell v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 725, 732 (S.D.Ohio 2006) aff'd, 225 Fed.Appx. 362 (6th Cir.2007). It' mandates, inter alia, that:

no employer shall employ any of his employees ... for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (emphasis added). The FLSA does not define the term “regular rate.” Mitchell, 428 F.Supp.2d at 732. However, federal regulations explain that “[t]he ‘regular rate’ under the Act is a rate per hour” and that “[t]he regular hourly rate of pay of an employee is determined by dividing his total remuneration for employment (except statutory exclusions) in any workweek by the total number of hours actually worked by him in that workweek for which such compensation was paid.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.109.

In Missel, the Supreme Court interpreted 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and approved the FWW as an alternative method for calculating an employee’s overtime compensation when the employee’s “contract is for a weekly wage with variable or fluctuating hours.” 316 U.S. at 580, 62-S.Ct. 1216. Under Missel, “when an employee is, by agreement, paid a fixed weekly wage for hours that fluctuate from week to week, the proper way to calculate the employee’s regular rate of pay is to divide the weekly wage by the number of hours actually worked in a particular week.” Urnikis-Negro v. Am. Family Prop. Servs., 616 F.3d 665, 674 (7th Cir.2010) (citing Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216). This approach “treats the fixed weekly wage paid to the employee as compensation at the regular rate for all hours that the employee works in a week, including overtime hours.” Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 674. As a result:

[t]he employer will separately owe the’ employee a premium for the overtime hours, but because he has already been compensated at the regular rate for the overtime hours by means of the fixed wage, the employer will owe him only one-half of the regular rate for those hours rather than time plus one-half.

Id.

The FWW method of calculating overtime compensation has been incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. The regulation provides:

An employee employed on a salary basis may have hours of work which fluctuate from week to week and the salary may be paid him pursuant to an understanding with his employer that he will receive such fixed amount as straight time pay for whatever hours he is called upon to work in a workweek, whether few or many. Where there is a clear mutual understanding of the parties that the fixed salary is compensation (apart from overtime premiums) for the hours worked each workweek, whatever their number, rather than for working 40 hours or some other fixed weekly work period, such a salary arrangement is permitted by the Act if the amount of the salary is sufficient to provide compensation to the employee at a rate not less than the applicable minimum wage rate for every hour worked in those workweeks in which the number of hours he works is greatest, and if he receives extra compensation, in addition to such salary, for all overtime hours worked at a rate not less than one-half his regular rate of pay. Since the salary in such a situation is intended to compensate the employee at straight time rates for whatever hours are worked in the workweek, the regular rate of the employee will vary from week to week and is determined by dividing the number of hours worked in the workweek into the amount of the salary to obtain the applicable hourly rate for the week. Payment for overtime hours at one-half such rate in addition to the salary satisfies the overtime pay requirement because such hours have already been compensated at the straight time regular rate, under the salary arrangement.

Id. § 778.114(a).

Courts have struggled with the application of the FWW method when calculating overtime compensation in FLSA misclassi-fication cases. Three distinct approaches are apparent from a review of the case law. Some district courts have concluded that the FWW should not be applied in a misclassification case under the FLSA. O’Neill v. Mermaid Touring Inc., 968 F.Supp.2d 572, 585 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (collecting cases). Other courts have relied on 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a) as a basis for applying the FWW method to calculate remedial overtime compensation in misclassification cases. See Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224, 1230-31 (10th Cir.2008); Valerio v. Putnam Assocs., 173 F.3d 35, 39-40 (1st Cir.1999); Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 835 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (5th Cir.1988). More recently, another group of appellate courts has found that 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a) does not authorize remedial damages and that Missel itself provides the authority for applying the FWW method in misclassification cases. See Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 497-98 (5th Cir.2013); Ransom v. M. Patel Enterprises, Inc., 734 F.3d 377, 384-86 (5th Cir.2013); Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 1311 (11th Cir.2013); Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, L.L.C., 630 F.3d 351, 357 (4th Cir.2011); Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 666.

Notably absent above is any case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. One district court has observed that “[t]here is no Sixth Circuit precedent controlling the calculation of damages in FLSA misclassification cases.” Arrington v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., No. 10-10975, 2012 WL 4868225, at *2 (E.D.Mich. Oct. 15, 2012). The Defendants here have invoked Missel as the basis for applying the FWW method in calculating any overtime compensation to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Under Missel, the FWW method of retroactively calculating overtime corn-pensation is permitted when an employer and employee agree that the employee will receive a fixed weekly wage to work fluctuating work hours. Black, 732 F.3d at 499 (citing Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216); Lamonica, 711 F.3d at 1310-11 (citing Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216); Desmond, 630 F.3d at 357 (Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216); Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 674 (citing Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216). “The question of whether an employer and employee agreed to a fixed weekly wage for fluctuating hours is a question of fact.” Black, 732 F.3d at 498 (citing Ransom, 734 F.3d at 381).

Here, the Defendants argue that the record demonstrates that the Plaintiff agreed to a fixed weekly salary as compensation for fluctuating work hours. To support their argument, the Defendants cite the Plaintiffs deposition at which he testified that his average work week was 70 hours, but that some weeks he worked 100 hours, up to 18 hours a day, Clark Dep. at 125. Further, the Defendants note, the Plaintiff received the Shop24 Employee Handbook, id. at 196, which stated:

The normal work day is eight (8) hours, and forty (40) hours represents a normal work week.... While you are generally expected to work the number of hours stated above, Company does not guarantee that you will actually be able to perform all of your work duties in this amount of time. You are expected to put in the amount of time over 40 hours per week necessary to complete your job duties and occasionally, in rare circumstances, substantial extra work will be required. If you are overburdened with work and unable to complete your assignments with a moderate amount of additional work each week, please speak to your supervisor; however, with more responsibility and increased pay, usually comes a greater work load and more time spent working.

Exempt employees are not paid overtime for hours worked above 40 hours per week; a moderate amount of expected overtime is built into your compensation package as a salaried employee.

Def.’s Manual at 8-9. Finally, the Defendants point to the Plaintiffs deposition as evidence that he understood his fixed weekly salary was his compensation for working fluctuating hours:

Defs.’ Counsel: And the entire duration of your employment you were on a salary the entire time?

Plaintiff; Yes.

Defs.’ Counsel: And you knew that was going to be the amount of money that you receive, you weren’t going to get any overtime compensation?

Plaintiff: That’s the way the conversations were then, yes.

Clark Dep. at 307.

Curiously, the Plaintiff devotes his response to addressing 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a) rather than Missel, the authority on which the Defendants rely. However, similar to Missel, one of § 778.114(a)’s requirements for the application of the FWW method is that the employer and employee must share a “clear mutual understanding” that the employer will pay the employee a fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked. In the body of his response, the Plaintiff appears to concede that he and the Defendants agreed to a fixed weekly salary as compensation for him working fluctuating hours. See Pl.’s Resp. at 28-29. Under Missel, this concession would permit the application of the FWW for purposes óf calculating any overtime compensation to which the Plaintiff is entitled. See Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 674 (citing Missel, 316 U.S. at 580, 62 S.Ct. 1216). However, in a footnote, the Plaintiff contests the Defendants’ assertion that he knew that his salary was the entire compensation that he was going to receive from Shop24 for his services:

Clark’s [sic] testified that he was not aware of how he should be paid. For example, Clark inquired as to whether he would be receiving overtime pay following a service trip, during which both Clark and Reckner worked long hours. (PI. Dep. at 337). Clark also testified that he was “constantly being promised” bonuses from Defendants. (PI. Dep. at 125; Reckner Dep. at 48^49).

Pl.’s Resp. at 30 n. 7. The Court must determine whether these facts are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties agreed that the Plaintiff would receive a fixed weekly wage to work fluctuating hours.

To determine whether the parties agreed that the Plaintiff would receive a fixed weekly wage to work fluctuating work hours, courts look to the parties’ initial understanding of the employment agreement and the parties’ course of conduct. Black, 732 F.3d at 499-501; Ransom, 734 F.3d at 386; see also Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 681 n. 8 (collecting cases suggesting that, in the absence of an explicit agreement, course of conduct may be used to infer an agreement regarding the number of hours a salary was intended to compensate). The parties have not presented the Court with an explicit employment agreement. The record concerning the parties’ course of conduct demonstrates that the Plaintiff worked fluctuating hours. However, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties’ agreed that a fixed weekly wage alone would compensate the Plaintiff for those fluctuating hours. The Plaintiffs testimony and the Deféndants’ Employee Handbook could be viewed to support the existence of such an agreement. In contrast, the evidence cited by the Plaintiff indicates that he questioned the Defendants why he did not receive overtime and that the Defendants promised him payment in the form of bonuses for his work. Such evidence is inconsistent with an agreement between the parties for a fixed weekly wage as compensation for fluctuating work hours.

Umikis-Negro and Black are instructive here. In Umikis-Negro, the employee worked fluctuating hours, accepted her fixed weekly pay without protest, and never requested overtime compensation. 616 F.3d at 669. Because of this course of conduct, the court permitted the use of the FWW method for calculating overtime compensation. Id. In contrast, in Black, the employee “immediately and repeatedly” voiced her disagreement with her lack of overtime pay upon being reclassified as an exempt employee. 732 F.3d at 501. Such conduct, in the court’s view, demonstrated “that [the employee] did not agree that her fixed weekly salary should compensate her for all of the hours she worked each week.” Id. Consequently, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s application of the FWW method when calculating the remedial overtime compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled. Id.

The present case falls between these two cases but is sufficiently similar to Black to justify denying the Defendants’ request for summary judgment as to the method for calculating any overtime compensation to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Like the employee in Black, the Plaintiff here repeatedly questioned his employer’s failure to pay him overtime. In addition, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendants promised him bonuses for his work, conduct inconsistent with an agreement between the parties for a fixed weekly wage as compensation for fluctuating work hours. The Court will deny the Defendants’ request for summary judgment accordingly.

B. Count Two — FLSA—Retaliation

In Count Two of his Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants terminated him for questioning them regarding his right to overtime compensation and for filing the instant action. The Defendants maintain that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this Count. They acknowledge that the FLSA prohibits firing or discriminating against any employee that exercises his rights under the FLSA, but maintain that the Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between his protected conduct and his termination. Moreover, the Defendants contend that, even if such a causal connection is demonstrated, they terminated the Plaintiff for a legitimate business reason. The Plaintiff disagrees, asserting that he can establish all elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and prove that any non-retaliatory reason proffered by the Defendants for his termination is pretextual.

The FLSA’s retaliation provision states in relevant part that it shall be unlawful “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter[J” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green’s burden-shifting analysis applies to claims of retaliation under the FLSA. Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 489 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558, 562 (6th Cir.2004)).

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must prove that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity under the FLSA; (2) his or her exercise of this right was known to the employer; (3) thereafter, the employer took an employment action adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Adair, 452 F.3d at 489 (citing Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 568 (6th Cir.1999)). If a plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to set the defendant to “to set forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” Adair, 452 F.3d at 489 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). “If the defendant carries this burden, the plaintiff then must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s proffered reasons were not its true reasons, but merely a pretext for illegal discrimination.” Adair, 452 F.3d at 489 (citing Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 883 (6th Cir.1996)).

1. Causal Connection

Here, the parties dispute the fourth element of the Plaintiffs prima facie case of retaliation. The Defendants emphasize that the Plaintiff first engaged in protected action in July 2009 when he complained of his lack of overtime to Reckner but was not terminated until September 2012, more than three years after he engaged in protected activity. Given this lack of temporal proximity, the Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination.

In response, the Plaintiff draws the Court to a different protected activity — the filing of the instant Complaint seeking unpaid overtime under the FLSA on September 4, 2012. The Plaintiff stresses that he was fired three weeks after filing the Complaint in the instant case. In his view, the temporal proximity between the filing of the Complaint and his termination is sufficient to establish a causal connection between the two.

“In order to establish a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action, plaintiff must produce enough evidence of a retaliatory motive such that a reasonable juror could conclude that the [adverse employment action] would not have occurred but for his engagement in protected activity.” Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 686 F.3d 202, 209 (6th Cir.2010). A causal link can be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence. Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d 286, 305 (6th Cir.2012). The Sixth Circuit has recognized that, in some cases, temporal proximity alone between the protected activity and the adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish a causal connection in a retaliation case. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 523-26 (6th Cir.2008).

Here, the Plaintiff was terminated by the Defendants three weeks after the filing of the Complaint in this case. This close temporal proximity between the Plaintiffs protected activity and the adverse employment action is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could conclude that the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for his engagement in protected activity. See Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324, 334 (6th Cir.2007) (“This Court typically [has] found the causal connection element [is] satisfied only where the adverse employment action occurred within a matter of months, or less, of the protected activity”); see also Herrera v. Churchill McGee, LLC, 545 Fed.Appx. 499, 501 (6th Cir.2013) (holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection); Shefferly v. Health Alliance Plan of Mich., 94 Fed.Appx. 275, 285 (6th Cir.2004) (“[T]he passage of less than three weeks between [the employer’s] receipt of the charges and the adverse actions gives rise to an inference of discrimination”); DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 421-22 (6th Cir.2004) (holding that the passage of only twenty-one days between the plaintiffs filing of an EEOC charge and his termination gave rise to an inference of a causal connection between the two events sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation); but see Philbrick v. Holder, 583 Fed.Appx. 478, 490 (6th Cir.2014) (holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection). Therefore, the Plaintiff has presented sufficient facts to establish a causal connection between the filing of the Complaint in this case and his subsequent termination.

2. Pretext

The Defendants also argue that, even if the Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, he was terminated for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. They argue that the Plaintiff was fired for his insubordinate and threatening behavior at dinner with Weygandt and Parker in Oklahoma City in September 2012. In the Defendants’ view, the Plaintiff cannot establish that their stated reason for terminating the Plaintiffs employment was pretextual.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ stated reason for firing him did not actually motivate their decision to terminate his employment. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants seized on the Plaintiffs comments at the dinner in Oklahoma City as a cover for their true reason for firing the Plaintiff — to punish the Plaintiff for his ongoing complaints about his lack of overtime compensation and the filing of the instant lawsuit. The .Plaintiff emphasizes that the temporal proximity between the filing of the instant lawsuit and his termination further supports the conclusion that the Defendants’ decision to terminate his employment based on his conduct at the dinner in Oklahoma City was pretextual in nature.

Here, the evidence presented by the Defendants indicates that the Plaintiffs behavior at the dinner with Weygandt and Parker in Oklah