Allen v. County of Nassau, 2:22-cv-01572

Background

Plaintiffs are current and former Nassau County Fire Communications Technicians I & II who staff the county 911 emergency system and work a rotating schedule of three 12-hour days on / three days off.
Plaintiffs allege payroll and break-related violations: unpaid or miscalculated overtime when schedules produce a fourth 12-hour shift in a seven-day period, incorrect overtime rate calculations, and no paid breaks during 12-hour shifts.
Plaintiffs contrast their treatment with Police Communications Operators/Supervisors (predominantly female), who allegedly receive four 30-minute paid breaks plus a one-hour lunch per 12-hour shift; claims invoke the FLSA, EPA, breach of the Ebbert consent judgment, and NCGL § 1307.
Procedural history: Plaintiffs filed a notice of claim (Mar. 18, 2022), an initial complaint (Mar. 22, 2022), then an amended complaint adding the NCGL §1307 claim (Apr. 19, 2022). Defendant moved to dismiss the Third (Ebbert) and Fourth (NCGL §1307) Causes of Action and to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel.
Court disposition (summary): The court dismissed the Third Cause of Action (breach of the Ebbert Order) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, denied dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action on the procedural and preclusion grounds presented, and denied the motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs needed to serve a notice of claim for their Ebbert-order breach claim	Plaintiffs argued Section 52 notice was not required for this claim	County argued notice of claim applied to state-law claims against the county	Court: Ebbert breach is a contract/consent-judgment claim; Section 52 notice does not apply to breach-of-contract claims, so notice not required
Whether Plaintiffs have standing to enforce the Ebbert consent order	Plaintiffs asserted the Ebbert Order requires parity (including breaks) and can be enforced	County argued plaintiffs were not parties to Ebbert and lack third‑party‑beneficiary standing	Court: Plaintiffs lack standing as intended third‑party beneficiaries; Third Cause dismissed for lack of standing
Whether the Ebbert Order (or settlement) requires parity in breaks such that a breach claim is plausible	Plaintiffs read an Ebbert line about "maintain equality" as requiring equal breaks	County argued Ebbert addresses grade/step parity, not break scheduling	Court: The Ebbert Order refers to grade‑level equality (vertical upgrades), not breaks; plaintiffs failed to state a claim — independent ground to dismiss Third Cause
Whether NCGL §1307 claim required pre-suit notice and/or is precluded by AFSCME (res judicata / collateral estoppel)	Plaintiffs: they served a notice of claim before amending; claim seeks equitable relief under §1307	County: plaintiffs failed to comply with notice timing and AFSCME already decided PCO vs. FCT equivalence	Court: Plaintiffs’ March 18 notice satisfied Section 52 for the §1307 claim; AFSCME (1992) was factually and procedurally distinct and preclusion doctrines do not bar the §1307 claim
Whether plaintiffs’ counsel must be disqualified for representing PCO/PCOS plaintiffs in other cases	Plaintiffs: counsel disclosed and clients consented; claims are not inherently antagonistic	County: counsel’s simultaneous representation of predominantly female PCOs and predominantly male FCTs creates a conflict	Court: speculative, hypothetical conflicts insufficient; high standard for disqualification not met — motion denied

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible factual allegations required)
Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993) (materials properly considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Saint Francis Hosp., 289 F. Supp. 2d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (consent judgments construed as contracts for enforcement)
Henneberger v. Cnty. of Nassau, 465 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (state procedural notice-of-claim rules apply to state-law claims in federal court)
Anderson v. Nassau Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F. Supp. 2d 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (County Law §52 broadly construed to require notice of claim for many county claims)
Copece Contracting Corp. v. Erie Cnty., 495 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985) (notice-of-claim requirement does not apply to breach-of-contract actions)
Smith v. Rise E. Sch., 502 N.Y.S.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986) (County Law §52 does not apply to contract recovery actions)
AFSCME v. Cnty. of Nassau, 799 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (court addressed whether PCO and FCT job functions were substantially similar)
Faulker v. Nat’l Geographic Enters. Inc., 409 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 2005) (collateral estoppel applies only where issues are identical and controlling facts remain unchanged)
Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1994) (motions to disqualify counsel are addressed to the district court’s discretion)