A recent lawsuit alleges that a medical equipment provider failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to its hourly employees, raising questions about payroll practices that could affect many current and former workers. The complaint was filed by Michael Dukeshire on April 1, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against IRB Medical Equipment, LLC, which does business as Hart Medical Equipment.
According to the filing, Dukeshire brings the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees who worked as non-exempt hourly workers at Hart Medical Equipment within the past three years. The complaint asserts that the company systematically excluded various forms of additional compensation—such as delivery premiums and on-call pay—from its calculation of employees’ regular rate when determining overtime pay. This practice is alleged to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 207.
The document states: “Through a knowing and company-wide pay practice, IRB Medical Equipment, LLC d/b/a Hart Medical Equipment (‘IRB’) systematically failed to pay Dukeshire and other similarly situated employees their full overtime wages.” It further alleges that IRB’s method did not account for non-discretionary remuneration like delivery premiums or on-call payments when calculating time-and-a-half rates for hours worked over forty in a week.
Dukeshire was hired by IRB on July 1, 2021, as a Medical Equipment Technician in Fremont, Ohio. He claims he regularly worked more than forty hours per week and received additional compensation beyond his base wage of $17.73 per hour. For example, during several pay periods between February and March 2025, Dukeshire reports receiving both regular and overtime wages along with delivery premiums ranging from $195 to $315 per period and on-call payments between $50 and $200 per period.
Despite these additional payments, Dukeshire contends that IRB used a fixed formula for calculating his overtime rate—$26.5950 per hour—regardless of whether he had also earned bonuses or extra pay during those weeks. The complaint states: “IRB used the same fixed overtime rate every time Dukeshire worked overtime, regardless of whether the same overtime workweek also included Delivery Prem, On Call Pay, Bonus, Worked Holiday pay, or work in a different department.”
The lawsuit argues this approach underpaid not only Dukeshire but all non-exempt hourly employees who received similar forms of extra compensation while working more than forty hours in a week. It emphasizes that this was not an isolated incident but rather “a company payroll practice” affecting multiple workers across different departments.
The legal filing seeks collective action status under FLSA Section 216(b), aiming to represent all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who may have been affected by these payroll policies within the last three years. The suit requests that notice be sent to all eligible individuals so they can join the case if they choose.
Dukeshire asks the court for several remedies: designation of the case as a collective action; issuance of notice to similarly situated employees; equitable tolling of statutes of limitations; payment of unpaid overtime compensation; an equal amount in liquidated damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The complaint asserts that any employment agreement attempting to shorten the statute of limitations or restrict collective relief under FLSA is invalid based on established law: “An employment agreement ‘cannot be utilized to deprive employees of their statutory [FLSA] rights.’”
Chris P. Wido of Spitz, The Employee’s Attorney represents Michael Dukeshire in this matter. The case number is 4:26-cv-11075-LJM-KGA.
Source: 426cv11075_Michael_Dukeshire_v_IRB_Medical_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
