A lawsuit claims that a Michigan-based contracting company did not include certain forms of pay when calculating overtime rates for its hourly workers, potentially affecting hundreds of current and former employees. The complaint was filed by Hassan Saleh on March 31, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Commercial Contracting Corporation.
According to the court filing, Saleh worked as a millwright at the company’s Marshall, Michigan facility from October 2025 to January 2026. He brings this action both individually and on behalf of others who are or were employed as hourly workers by Commercial Contracting Corporation within the past three years. The complaint states that Saleh is seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The core issue centers on how overtime pay was calculated for hourly employees. The complaint alleges that while workers received various types of non-discretionary remuneration—such as travel incentives and shift premiums—these payments were not included in their regular rate of pay when determining overtime wages. Under federal law, non-exempt employees are entitled to receive one-and-a-half times their regular rate for hours worked beyond forty per week. Saleh asserts that “Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff’s non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation,” resulting in what he describes as “prima facie violations of the FLSA.”
Saleh’s November 11, 2025 earnings statement is cited as an example: it showed sixty hours worked at a base rate of $38.72 per hour with an overtime rate calculated at $58.08 (1.5 times base), plus $600 in incentive pay and $14 in shift premium pay. However, according to the complaint, “Plaintiff’s overtime rate did not account for the non-discretionary remuneration and, therefore, Defendant violated the FLSA.” The lawsuit contends that this practice affected all similarly situated hourly employees across multiple locations where Commercial Contracting Corporation operates.
The legal arguments reference specific provisions of federal law requiring all forms of remuneration to be included in calculating an employee’s regular rate unless explicitly excluded by statute. The filing states: “There is a statutory presumption that remuneration in any form must be included in the regular rate calculation,” citing relevant case law and Department of Labor regulations.
Saleh seeks certification of a collective action under section 216(b) of the FLSA so that notice can be sent to other affected workers who may wish to join the suit. He argues that “Defendant utilized a centralized payroll system which calculated overtime pay for all similarly situated employees in the same or similar manner,” regardless of job title or location.
The relief requested includes:
– Designation of this case as a collective action,
– An order compelling disclosure of contact information for potential class members,
– Tolling of statutes of limitations if discovery is sought regarding whether plaintiffs are similarly situated,
– A complete accounting of owed compensation,
– Declarations that defendant violated federal labor laws and did so willfully,
– Monetary judgment awarding full back pay with equal liquidated damages,
– Awards for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
– Recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees,
– And any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Saleh also demands a jury trial on all triable issues related to these claims.
Attorneys Jesse L. Young and Alana Karbal from Sommers Schwartz P.C., based in Kalamazoo and Southfield respectively, represent Saleh and any putative collective members who may join this action. The case is identified as Case No.: 2:26-cv-11051-MAG-KGA.
Source: 226cv11051_Hassan_Saleh_v_Commercial_Contracting_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
