Collette Davis v. Abington Mem Hosp
765 F.3d 236
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Five related FLSA/pay-policy cases involve nurses and patient-care staff alleging underpayment due to three policies: 30-minute meal-break deductions, prohibition on recording time outside scheduled shifts, and unpaid training time.
- Plaintiffs filed federal and state complaints in 2009 alleging FLSA, ERISA, and RICO violations; ERISA and RICO claims were later dropped or dismissed.
- The district court dismissed the consolidated third amended complaints for failing to plausibly allege employer-employee relationships and overtime without compensation, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal orders and remand decisions; later orders dismissed state-law claims and overtime claims under FLSA.
- The Third Circuit reviews a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, applying Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standards; the court ultimately affirms the district court’s dismissal.
- The court adopts the Lundy standard requiring a plaintiff to allege a workweek of at least 40 hours with some uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours to state a plausible overtime claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged overtime under FLSA | Davis: alleged typical 40-hour weeks plus unpaid time | Davis defendants: no individual week shows 40+ hours with unpaid time | Yes for pleading; but court affirms dismissal due to lack of any week with 40+ hours and unpaid time |
| Whether pure gap time claims are cognizable under FLSA | Plaintiffs seek gap-time recovery | FLSA does not cover pure gap time unless overtime exists | Pure gap-time claims not cognizable; FLSA requires hours over 40 or minimum wages; gap-time dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend | Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend to fix deficiencies | Court warned plaintiffs and denied further amendment as futile | No abuse of discretion; court did not err in denying fourth amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (requires pleading 40 hours with uncompensated time to state plausible FLSA overtime claim)
- Nakahata v. NY–Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiffs must provide detail about length/frequency of unpaid work)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requirements of pleading plausible claims)
- Manning v. Boston Medical Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (addressed similar Lundy-like pleading of overtime)
- Davis v. Food Lion, 792 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1986) (standard for proving overtime hours with inference)
- Monahan v. Chesterfield Cnty., 95 F.3d 1263 (4th Cir. 1996) (gap-time and non-overtime compensation discussion)
- Adair v. City of Kirkland, 185 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (gap-time concept in FLSA context)