A Columbus, Ohio–area home health services company recently agreed to pay $975,000 to resolve a collective action alleging it misclassified its program managers as exempt from overtime pay. The case may serve as a cautionary reminder for healthcare employers about the risks of classifying frontline supervisors as exempt.
Quick Hits
- ViaQuest Residential Services recently agreed to pay $975,000 to settle claims it misclassified program managers as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio’s wage laws.
- The case, Simmons v. ViaQuest Residential Services LLC, No. 2:23-00201 (S.D. Ohio), centered on whether program managers’ “primary duty” was management or direct patient care.
- One hundred-six plaintiffs opted in after conditional certification, illustrating how quickly liability can scale with companywide classification practices.
- Healthcare employers may want to consider auditing the actual duties of their program managers and similar frontline supervisors to ensure exempt classifications withstand scrutiny.
The Complaint
Kenneth Simmons filed suit in January 2023 on behalf of himself and similarly situated program managers at ViaQuest Residential Services, LLC, a company that provides home healthcare services, including support to individuals with developmental disabilities. Simmons alleged in the complaint that ViaQuest maintained a companywide policy of classifying program managers as salaried exempt employees and failing to pay overtime. Simmons alleged that program managers’ primary duties were nonexempt in nature—consisting largely of providing direct patient care—and that they did not qualify as “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employees under the FLSA’s white-collar exemptions. The complaint raised claims under the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and alleged that ViaQuest’s violations were knowing and willful.
ViaQuest’s Answer
ViaQuest broadly denied the allegations, insisting its program managers were properly classified as exempt under both the FLSA’s “executive exemption” and “administrative exemption.” ViaQuest contended that program managers earned the required minimum salary, directed the work of at least two full-time employees, had hiring and firing authority, and exercised discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. Even if program managers performed some nonexempt work, ViaQuest argued, their primary duty always remained management, and such work would have been done while multitasking. Under the FLSA, the term “primary duty” means “the principal, main, major, or most important duty that the employee performs.”
The Settlement
The court conditionally certified the collective action in April 2023, and 106 individuals opted in. After substantial discovery, the parties reached a settlement during their third mediation session in January 2026. The $975,000 fund covers all individual payments, service awards, attorney fees, and costs, with plaintiffs receiving pro rata payments representing approximately 76.4 percent of their calculated alleged unpaid overtime. ViaQuest continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Key Takeaways for Healthcare Employers
This case highlights the compliance risks healthcare companies face when they rely on program managers and similar frontline supervisors who carry supervisory titles but spend much of their time delivering hands-on patient care. The FLSA’s white-collar exemptions turn on actual duties, not job titles, and the more time a manager spends providing direct care—and to the extent to it is a reliable proxy for the “principal, main, major, or most important duty of the employee”—the harder it may be for an employer to argue that management is the “primary duty.”
Healthcare employers should consider auditing the actual day-to-day duties of frontline supervisors—not just job descriptions—to ensure exempt classifications can withstand scrutiny.
