Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wesley v. Accessible Home Care

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

April 26, 2018

MISTY LYNN WESLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ACCESSIBLE HOME CARE, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge

         Pro se plaintiff Misty Lynn Wesley moves for certification to file a new civil lawsuit based on claims arising from her past employment with Defendant Accessible Home Care. [Record No. 2] Wesley has a long history of filing what this Court has characterized as “abusive litigation”. As a result, General Order No. 07-6');">6 was entered on February 14, 2007. [Record No. 1] It provides that, before Wesley may file a new action in this Court, she must obtain certification from a United States Magistrate Judge in this district stating that the claims asserted are not frivolous and that the filing is not submitted for any improper purpose.

         I.

         Wesley asserts in the present action a host of federal statutory and state law claims against Accessible Home Care, its owners, and its employees, which are, for the most part, difficult to follow. [Record Nos. 2, 6');">6] United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier issued an Order on April 9, 2018, denying Wesley's motion for certification. Wesley then filed a motion pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on April 18, 2018. [Record No. 6');">6] Wesley has failed to articulate specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Certification Order and, instead, has repeated many of the assertions contained in her initial filing. The Court has reviewed Wesley's allegations and will grant her motion, in part, and deny it, in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 6');">636');">6(b)(1).

         II.

         Wesley worked for Defendant Accessible Home Care which was owned by Bill and Kaye Hughes. [Record No. 6');">6, p. 2');">p. 2] She alleges that the defendants engaged in “labor trafficking” and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. Wesley was paid $9.50 per hour to look after an elderly client in Lexington, Kentucky when she began working for Accessible Home Care. [Record No. 6');">6, p. 4] After a couple of days, the client began asking Wesley to polish silver and to clean carpets, walls, and the refrigerator. Id. Wesley asked Bill Hughes to tell the client that Wesley was not to perform such tasks, but Hughes declined, telling her, “we're cheaper than maids.” Id. Wesley asked to be reassigned to a different client but tendered her resignation in the meantime. Id.

         Wesley was transferred to another elderly client's home where she was paid $11.50 per hour. However, following a conflict with a co-worker, Wesley asked Hughes “to find another person to work over there.” Id. at p. 5. Wesley was then assigned to a live-in position with an elderly couple, where she worked 24-hour shifts, “3 days on and 3 days off.” Id. She was paid $170.00 per day. Wesley contends that the couple's daughter kept a list of chores for her, which included vacuuming, sweeping, mopping, and cleaning the bathrooms. Id. According to Wesley, Hughes “flat out refused” to tell the client that she was not supposed to perform these duties.

6 6 Id. 1 1 1 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.