A former employee alleges that he was demoted, had his pay reduced, and was ultimately fired after raising concerns about wage disparities between himself and a female colleague at a skilled nursing facility. The complaint was filed by Nicholas C. Boak in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 9, 2026, naming Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc., doing business as The Laurels of Coldwater, as the defendant.
According to the court filing, Boak began working as a social worker at The Laurels of Coldwater in February 2023 and remained employed there until November 2025. Throughout his employment, Boak states that he performed his duties competently and held the same job title as his female colleague. Both were responsible for similar tasks and provided comparable value to the facility.
The dispute arose in the summer or early fall of 2025 when Boak’s female colleague discovered she was earning significantly less than Boak despite performing equal work. She reportedly brought this issue to the attention of the facility’s administrator. Shortly thereafter, Boak also learned about the wage difference—approximately $12 per hour—and expressed his concerns to management. The complaint notes that “the fact that he was making significantly more money than his female colleague offended Plaintiff’s sense of fairness.” Boak then approached the administrator to complain about what he described as an unfair pay differential and suggested that his colleague receive a substantial raise.
Boak alleges that after making these complaints in good faith, he faced adverse employment actions from Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater. On or about October 23, 2025, Boak was informed by the administrator that his base hourly wage would be reduced from $35.71 to $30.00 per hour—a decrease of $5.71 per hour effective November 2, 2025—with no additional benefits offered to offset this reduction.
The situation escalated on November 5, 2025, when Boak received a letter from management informing him that he was being demoted to Social Services Designee/Discharge Planner with a reduced wage rate. He was asked to sign an acknowledgment agreeing to these changes under threat of termination if he refused. According to the complaint, “Plaintiff then refused to sign a writing in which he agreed to his demotion and pay cut.” As a result, on or about November 6, 2025, Boak’s employment was terminated.
The lawsuit further claims that around this time period—late October or early November 2025—the female colleague received an approximate $5 per hour raise while Boak’s hourly wage was reduced.
Boak asserts three causes of action in his complaint:
1) Retaliation in violation of the federal Equal Pay Act and Fair Labor Standards Act: He argues that complaining about unequal pay is protected activity under federal law (29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d) and Sec. 215(a)(3)), and alleges that his subsequent demotion, pay cut, and termination were retaliatory acts directly connected to those complaints.
2) Retaliation in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act: He claims protection under Michigan law (MCL Sec. 37.2701(a)) for raising concerns about wage disparity based on gender and contends that adverse actions taken against him were motivated by these protected activities.
3) Reduction of wages in violation of the federal Equal Pay Act: The complaint cites federal law prohibiting employers from reducing any employee’s wages as a means to comply with equal pay requirements (29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(1)).
Boak alleges both economic losses—including lost earnings and benefits—and non-economic harm such as emotional distress resulting from these actions by Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater.
In terms of relief sought from the court, Boak requests compensatory economic damages (including back pay and front pay), compensatory non-economic damages for emotional distress, liquidated damages pursuant to federal law (29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)), exemplary damages under Michigan common law, reasonable attorney’s fees under both federal and state statutes (29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), MCL Secs. 37.2801 & .2802), litigation costs pursuant to both jurisdictions’ laws, interest on any awarded sums, and any other legal or equitable relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-00769 ECF No.1 PagelD; it is being handled by attorney Ronald G. Carpenter for Nicholas C. Boak.
Source: 126cv769_Nicholas_Boak_v_Oak_Health_Complaint_Western_District_Of_Michigan.pdf
