The FLSA continues to wreak havoc for countless employers. I’ve written numerous times about the difficulties in defending against a claim brought under the FLSA or its state counterparts. Even meritless claims can be incredibly costly to litigate, leaving many employers feeling like they have no choice but to settle. I believe the term I’ve used on more than one occasion to describe such situations is “legal extortion.”
There are, however, some small glimmers of hope from the courts. I’ve written about a line of cases that have rejected plaintiff’s auto-deduction cases. I also wrote recently about an 8th Cir. decision, Carmody v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, in which the court awarded summary judgment against a class of plaintiff-police officers who failed during discovery to identify with specificity the hours they claimed to have worked but not been paid. This decision was a very big deal for employers. Which is why a new decision from the 2d Circuit offers even more hope that the law will trend towards dismissal of meritless cases involving legal extortion.
In Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, the plaintiff’s overtime claim was dismissed by the trial court because her complaint did not include “any approximation of the number of unpaid overtime hours worked, her rate of pay, or any approximation of the amount of wages due.” Instead, her complaint merely alleged that she worked more than forty hours per week during “some or all weeks” of her employment.
On appeal, the 2d Cir. affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that she worked overtime without proper compensation under the FLSA. The court reiterated the standard that it had announced in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, decided earlier this year. Specifically, the standard requires a plaintiff to sufficiently allege 40 hours of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.”
In Lundy, the court did not go so far as to require that the plaintiff include an approximation of the number of overtime hours sought but it did say that including such an approximation “may help draw a plaintiff’s claim closer to plausibility” and thereby avoid dismissal.
Perhaps the most powerful part of the court’s opinion in Dejesus was the acknowledgment that the information about the plaintiff’s allegations rest squarely with the plaintiff. As the court explained, if an employee has absolutely no recollection whatsoever about the times worked, then he or she should not have pursued a claim in court.
Hopefully, this trend continues and, with any luck, courts in other circuits will begin to adopt this reasoning in FLSA cases.
Dejesus v. HF Mgm’t Servs., LLC, No. 12-4565 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).
Another Auto-Deduct Case Bites the Dust (Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC (D. Mass. July 11, 2013)).
8th Cir- FLSA Plaintiffs Must Spell It Out (Carmody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013)).
2d Cir- FLSA Does Not Cover Gap Time (Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)).
Another Employer’s Auto-Deduct Policy Is Upheld (Creeley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2013)).
6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation (White v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012)).
The Legality of Automatically Deducting Meal Breaks (Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012)).
E.D. Pa. Dismisses Nurses’ Claims for Missed Meal Breaks, Part I and Part II (Lynn v. Jefferson Health Sys., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2012)).
FLSA Victory: Class Certification Denied (Pennington v. Integrity Comm’n, LLC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2012)).