A lawsuit claims that a Michigan-based furniture manufacturer failed to properly compensate its hourly workers for overtime by not including certain bonuses in their regular rate of pay, potentially affecting thousands of current and former employees. The complaint was filed on March 25, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan by Meghan Robetoy against Haworth Inc.
According to the filing, Meghan Robetoy worked as a non-exempt production coordinator at Haworth’s Big Rapids facility from December 2024 to July 2025. She brings this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated hourly employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The suit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under federal law.
The complaint outlines that Haworth Inc., described as “a leading global furniture maker that builds innovative products for optimal workplace performance,” employs thousands of hourly workers across multiple locations in Michigan. Robetoy alleges that she and other hourly employees were paid varying base rates—her most recent being $19.25 per hour—and also received additional forms of non-discretionary remuneration such as “Performance Bonus,” “Variable Award” (quarterly performance bonus), and “Spot Bonus.” These payments are collectively referred to as “Bonus Pay” in the complaint.
Robetoy asserts that under FLSA regulations, all forms of non-discretionary remuneration must be included when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. The filing states: “Defendant failed to incorporate Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into its Hourly Employees’ regular hourly rate calculation, resulting in prima facie violations of the FLSA.”
The legal arguments cite several Department of Labor regulations and case law emphasizing that employers must include all such bonuses unless specifically excluded by statute. For example, the complaint references 29 C.F.R. §778.207(b), which requires that “the regular rate of pay must consist of all forms of remuneration including non-discretionary bonuses.” The plaintiff alleges that Haworth did not follow these requirements when calculating overtime rates for her and others.
An example provided in the filing describes Robetoy’s paystub from February 16 to March 1, 2025: she worked over eighty hours at a base rate but received an overtime rate calculated only on her base wage—not accounting for bonus payments like a $1,480.63 “Perf Award.” According to Robetoy, this resulted in her being underpaid for overtime work.
The lawsuit seeks certification as a collective action under FLSA section 216(b), arguing that many current and former employees are similarly situated because they received similar types of bonus payments excluded from their regular rate calculations. The complaint requests court-authorized notice so affected individuals can join the case: “Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) is proper and necessary so that these employees may be readily notified…and allowed to opt in.”
Robetoy asks the court for several remedies: designation as representative plaintiff; full accounting of owed compensation; orders declaring Haworth violated FLSA both generally and willfully; monetary judgment awarding back pay plus an equal amount in liquidated damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; service payment to herself as named plaintiff; and any further relief deemed just by the court.
The attorneys representing Robetoy and potential collective members are Jesse L. Young (P72614) and Paulina R. Kennedy (P84790) from Sommers Schwartz P.C., with offices listed in Kalamazoo and Southfield, Michigan. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00986.
Source: 126cv00986_Meghan_Robetoy_v_Haworth_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
