Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Overtime Lawsuit Where Complaint Fails to Allege Extra Hours Worked

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

The most recent of three similar decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit may limit the risk employers face from overtime lawsuits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). On Aug. 5, 2013, in Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, a/k/a Healthfirst, the court affirmed the dismissal of an FLSA and NYLL overtime lawsuit because the plaintiff failed "to plausibly allege she worked more than 40 hours in a given week and was not paid overtime wages." Although the court recognized that plaintiffs may lack access to the employer's records regarding the plaintiff's exact pay and hours worked, a complaint must at least approximate the number of overtime hours allegedly worked and for which the plaintiff was not compensated. Simply alleging that the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in certain weeks and was not compensated will not be enough to stay in court.

Employers Benefit from the Decision

This decision makes it less likely that employers will face FLSA and NYLL complaints filed simply as "fishing expeditions" in the hope of finding an overtime violation through discovery or to hold the employer up for a nuisance settlement. It also shows that a plaintiff, who decides not to amend a "bare bones" complaint to add more factual detail — rather than appealing an adverse decision, risks being thrown out of court permanently.

Employment Facts and Complaint's Allegations

Ramona Dejesus was employed by HF Management Services, LLC ("Healthfirst") in New York City as a promoter of its insurance programs and services. Dejesus sued Healthfirst in March 2012, alleging that she was an employee owed overtime wages by the company for the three years prior to April 2011, under both the FLSA and the NYLL. In her complaint, Dejesus alleged, among other facts, that:

  • She worked more than 40 hours per week, the threshold for overtime under both federal and New York law, during "some or all weeks" during the period at issue.
  • She was not paid the rate of 1.5 times her regular wage for each extra hour over 40 in any given week.
  • She was not paid for commissions earned and owed to her at the time her employment ended with Healthfirst.
  • The company "breached the employment agreement/contract" by not paying her the wages she was allegedly owed, although she never attached the alleged contract between her and Healthfirst or, for that matter, describe any of its material terms in the complaint.

The District Court's Ruling

Healthfirst asked the district court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Dejesus had not alleged enough facts to set out a plausible claim that Healthfirst had failed to pay her overtime compensation for weeks in which she worked more than 40 hours. Although the court is required to take factual allegations in a complaint as true at the outset of a lawsuit, it is not required to accept bare-bones allegations or mere legal conclusions. Rather, the court said that to state a valid claim under the FLSA and the NYLL, the plaintiff is required to allege facts showing that: "(1) she was an employee eligible for overtime pay; and (2) that she actually worked overtime without proper compensation." More specifically, the court said the plaintiff must allege the "approximate" number of unpaid overtime hours allegedly worked per week. This requirement also places the onus upon the plaintiff to state her rate of pay and the amount of total overtime wages due. The court found that Dejesus' complaint was deficient on both grounds. Specifically, Dejesus failed "to set forth the precise position she held [and alleging the attendant duties as one that is not otherwise exempt from overtime under the FLSA], any approximation of the number of unpaid overtime hours worked, her rate of pay, or any approximation of the amount of wages due." Accordingly, the court found that Dejesus' complaint "lacks the minimal allegations necessary to state a claim for unpaid wages under the FLSA" and granted Healthfirst's motion to dismiss. The court seemed to encourage Dejesus to file an amended complaint, stating that "[n]othing in the complaint or the papers suggests that there is no possibility that a valid claim could be stated, given more factual detail and contextual information." Nonetheless, Dejesus chose not to amend her complaint, but rather file an appeal.

The Second Circuit's Review

The Second Circuit affirmed the district's court dismissal of the case and held that Dejesus failed to plausibly allege she worked more than 40 hours in a given week and was not paid overtime wages.

The court relied on and amplified two recent decisions concerning what a complaint must allege to state a valid FLSA claim. In Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, 711 F.3d 106 (Mar. 1, 2013), the court held that "in order to state a plausible FLSA overtime claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege 40 hours of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours." Although the court "declined to make an approximation of overtime hours a necessity in all cases," it noted that "an approximation ‘may help draw a plaintiff's claim closer to plausibility.'" The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint because even though the plaintiff alleged approximations of the hours worked, the allegations did not "get beyond forty hours in any given week." In the second case, Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Health Sys. Inc., 2013 WL 3743152 (July 11, 2013), the plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid for work during meal breaks, training sessions and extra shift time, and thus worked unpaid overtime. In affirming the dismissal of the complaint, the Second Circuit held that the hospital workers' complaint lacked the requisite "specificity" in that it "raised the possibility of an overtime claim" but not a "plausible claim for relief" because it did not show "how these instances added up to [40] or more hours in a given week."

Applying these decisions, the Second Circuit found that Dejesus' complaint "provided [even] less factual specificity" than did the plaintiffs in Lundy and Nakahata. According to the court, Dejesus "did not estimate her hours in any or all weeks or provide any other factual content or context. Indeed, her complaint was devoid of any numbers to consider beyond those plucked from the [FLSA]." Her complaint stated only that Dejesus worked more than 40 hours per week in "some or all weeks" without being paid overtime wages, which, essentially, "rephrased the FLSA's overtime provisions [contained in the FLSA]." Seeming to temper the harsh result for Dejesus, the court pointed out that it "has not required plaintiffs to keep careful records and plead their hours with mathematical precision, [and that] we have recognized that it is the employees' memory and experience that lead them to claim in federal court that they have been denied overtime in violation of the FLSA in the first place." But the court concluded that "[w]hatever the precise level of specificity that was required of the complaint, Dejesus at least was required to do more than repeat the language of the statute." As Dejesus had forgone the opportunity to file an amended complaint, her lawsuit was irrevocably dismissed.

Why Healthfirst Matters

The Second Circuit's three recent decisions about what an FLSA complaint must allege to withstand dismissal are welcome for employers (especially for those within the Second Circuit's jurisdiction — Connecticut, New York and Vermont). If a plaintiff can get by with alleging simply that she was not paid overtime even though she worked more than 40 hours in certain weeks, then plaintiffs can either engage in an expensive fishing expedition in search of a claim, or try to hold the employer up for a settlement. These decisions mean that plaintiffs will need to allege — with at least minimal specificity — facts showing that they actually worked more than 40 hours in particular weeks and that they were not paid overtime in those weeks. This heightened requirement may limit the number of FLSA and NYLL suits.

Employers should remember, though, that the federal Department of Labor has created a Smartphone application to help employees track their overtime hours, which may make it easier for plaintiffs to satisfy even the new heightened pleading standards. So despite these cases, employers should still be taking steps to make sure they comply with the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Holland & Knight LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.