320 F. Supp. 3d 178
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Vox Media operates ~319 sports sites (SB Nation) each managed by a Site Manager under written "Blogger Agreements." Plaintiffs are three Site Managers (Bradley, Wakefield, Varda) who performed content, editorial, social-media, and supervisory tasks for low monthly pay while working 30–60 hours/week.
- Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as independent contractors and seek unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA; they filed a collective action and amended complaint adding the three named plaintiffs.
- Vox moved to dismiss claims older than two years, arguing Plaintiffs failed to plead a "willful" violation necessary to invoke the FLSA's three-year statute of limitations; Vox also sought judicial notice of social-media screenshots to show Plaintiffs considered themselves nonemployees or worked for others.
- Plaintiffs allege willfulness based on (1) senior Vox executives (Bankoff, Moe, Fisher) who previously worked at AOL and were aware of litigation/DoL investigation over similar classifications; and (2) internal complaints from Site Managers about inadequate pay.
- The court declined to take judicial notice of the LinkedIn and website screenshots because their accuracy was not verifiable with certainty at the pleading stage.
- On the statute-of-limitations issue, the court held the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged facts that plausibly support a claim of willfulness and denied the motion to dismiss as premature; willfulness can be tested later at summary judgment or after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may take judicial notice of LinkedIn/website screenshots | Plaintiffs: screenshots are unreliable and not determinative at pleading stage | Vox: screenshots show Plaintiffs saw themselves as independent contractors or worked for others, relevant to willfulness | Court: declined to take judicial notice — accuracy not verifiable at this stage |
| Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a willful FLSA violation to trigger the 3‑year limitations period | Plaintiffs: executives' prior AOL experience with similar litigation + internal pay complaints show knowledge/reckless disregard | Vox: Plaintiffs' allegations are speculative and insufficient to show willfulness | Court: allegations are sufficient to state a plausible willfulness claim; denied dismissal of claims older than two years |
Key Cases Cited
- Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (documents and matters subject to judicial notice on 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willfulness defined for FLSA tolling)
- Galloway v. Chugach Gov't Servs., Inc., 199 F.Supp.3d 145 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying dismissal of willfulness where factual allegations showed knowledge/reckless disregard)
- Wilson v. Hunam Inn, Inc., 126 F.Supp.3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (courts generally disfavor resolving willfulness on motion to dismiss)