Chime v. Peak Security Plus, Inc.
137 F. Supp. 3d 183
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Chime alleges Peak Security Plus, Inc. and Osula violated FLSA/NYLL by failing to pay overtime and for off-the-clock work.
- SACAC asserts three overtime-related theories: no overtime premiums, no compensation for hours over 40, and reduced overtime rate ($9/hr).
- Plaintiff seeks FLSA collective certification under §216(b) and NYLL class certification under Rule 23; motions were pending from both sides.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a Report recommending denial of dismissal and granting certification and class/notice, with tolling considerations.
- Court later adopted R&R with tolling of statute of limitations from Sept 9, 2013, but tolled as of July 23, 2015 for equitable tolling, and granted conditional certification and class certification.
- Notice plan approved to combine FLSA collective notice with NYLL class notice and to post notices at worksites; list of Peak Security guards requested for notice purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SACAC plausibly pleads FLSA coverage and overtime violations | Chime shows enterprise-wide practice causing overtime violations. | Allegations insufficient to show coverage or actionable overtime under FLSA. | SACAC adequately pleads FLSA coverage and overtime nonpayment. |
| Whether the time-bar defense is applicable given willfulness and accrual | Willfulness and accrual date extend limitations, tolling appropriate. | Time-bar defenses should apply; accrual precise and limitations strict. | Three-year statute applies; claims timely; equitable tolling ordered from 7/23/2015. |
| Whether pre- and post-shift and training time are compensable under the FLSA | Pre/post-shift and training time are potentially compensable; allegations sufficient. | Such time not compensable or insufficiently pled as non-exempt. | Plaintiff’s pleadings support compensability of pre/post-shift time and training under FLSA. |
| Whether conditional collective certification and NYLL class certification are appropriate | Declarations show common policy of underpayment; class/collective appropriate. | Not enough evidence of similarly situated, or common policy. | Both conditional FLSA collective and NYLL class certifications granted. |
| Whether equitable tolling should apply and how broad the notice/class scope should be | Equitable tolling warranted to avoid prejudice; broad notice appropriate. | Delay in seeking tolling undermines diligence; narrow scope preferred. | Tolling approved from 7/23/2015; notice to broader class under revised start date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (requires plausible 40-hour workweek plus uncompensated time to state an overtime claim)
- Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (requires allegations of 40-hour week timing/scheduling to plausibly plead overtime)
- DeJesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (further limits pleading specificity for overtime claims; emphasizes scheduling/40-hour threshold)
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi Corp., 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (discusses specificity requirements for overtime claims under prior circuit framework)