Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd., 84 F.4th 110

Background

Thirteen former employees of Dover Street Market New York (DSMNY) sued, alleging they were misclassified as exempt managers, paid a salary, and denied overtime under the FLSA and NYLL.
Plaintiffs alleged a regular five-shift workweek (opening shift ~9:00–6:00; closing ~10:15–7:00), i.e., about 43.75–45 hours/week, plus additional uncompensated duties (working through lunch, ~5 hours/week post-work duties, ~3 hours/week handling shipments, and occasional 13‑hour shifts during seasonal changeovers).
The District Court dismissed the FLSA claim for insufficient specificity about hours (faulting alleged gaps and group pleading) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL claims.
On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and considered prior pleading standards for FLSA overtime claims.
The Second Circuit concluded the complaint plausibly alleged a regularly scheduled workweek exceeding 40 hours and that Plaintiffs were misclassified; it vacated the dismissal and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pleading specificity for FLSA overtime	Alleging a regularly scheduled workweek over 40 hours (and misclassification) is enough; need not list every week	Plaintiffs must plead specific weeks/hours (week-by-week) to show >40 hours in a given workweek	Court held plaintiffs need only plausibly allege a 40+ hour regular workweek and some uncompensated time; no requirement to list each week
Compensability of lunch breaks / early/late time	Alleged they were not completely relieved during lunch and had early arrivals/late departures — those minutes count as work	Defendants argued allegations insufficiently specific about duration/frequency of work during lunch	Court held alleged lack of bona fide meal period (required to be completely relieved) is sufficient; need not quantify minutes per lunch break
Group pleading / reliance on common allegations	Common, typical schedule across similarly situated named plaintiffs fairly pleads the regular schedule and its duration for each plaintiff	Group pleading undermines notice; allegations about a group over many years are too generalized	Court found group pleading not fatal here because the regular schedule is central and each plaintiff alleged when they worked that schedule
Timeliness / statute of limitations & supplemental jurisdiction	Plaintiffs preserved claims; specific timeliness defenses were not decided below	Defendants noted many plaintiffs may be time‑barred and urged dismissal of untimely allegations	Court declined to rely on timeliness on appeal and remanded for district court to address preserved timeliness issues; vacated dismissal and remanded (district court may consider limitations on remand)

Key Cases Cited

Lundy v. Cath. Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must sufficiently allege 40 hours in a given workweek and some uncompensated time in excess of 40)
Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (FLSA claims require some specificity about length and frequency of unpaid work)
Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (alleging work "in some or all workweeks" is insufficient)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Alix v. McKinsey & Co., 23 F.4th 196 (2d Cir. 2022) (standards for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020) (employees misclassified as exempt may recover unpaid overtime and liquidated damages)
DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., 822 F.2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1987) (group pleading doctrine in fraud contexts; defendants must be informed of their alleged roles)