142 F. Supp. 3d 224
D.R.I.2015Background
- Two consolidated suits by fee-for-service therapists against their current/former employers (The Providence Center; Family Service of Rhode Island) alleging FLSA and RIMWA minimum-wage violations for uncompensated tasks attendant to paid therapy sessions.
- Plaintiffs claim flat fees (e.g., $40 per 45-minute session) but allege they were required to perform additional time-consuming tasks (travel, waiting for clients, "no-show" paperwork, progress notes, insurance authorizations) for which they were not paid.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing plaintiffs failed to plead a compensable-hours/under-compensation theory with required specificity and relied on the Klinghoffer "weekly measuring rod."
- Key legal dispute: what "measuring rod" governs minimum-wage violations under the FLSA — whether courts must use a weekly-averaging test (Klinghoffer), an hourly test, or may evaluate the employment contract (a "contract measuring rod").
- The court concluded plaintiffs pled neither a weekly-averaging claim (no allegation wages/week ÷ hours < minimum) nor a contract-based claim (they did not allege the unpaid tasks were outside the bargained-for contract), and therefore dismissed without prejudice and granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper "measuring rod" to plead FLSA minimum-wage violation | Norceide-style hourly/contract approach: employer must pay minimum for each hour or compensate additional required tasks | Klinghoffer weekly-averaging rule: violation only if weekly wages / hours < statutory minimum | Court rejects exclusive Klinghoffer rule; adopts permissive approach allowing a "contract measuring rod" alongside weekly test; measure depends on compensation structure and contract |
| Sufficiency of pleading compensable unpaid work | Plaintiffs allege unpaid attendant tasks and no pay for travel/waiting/no-show follow-up | Defendants: plaintiffs fail to allege hours or that weekly average fell below minimum; pleadings lack specificity | Plaintiffs failed to plead either theory plausibly; dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend |
| Applicability of RIMWA (state law) | RIMWA claim parallels FLSA; same measuring-rod analysis applies | Rely on similarity to federal law; no independent measuring-rod in RIMWA | Court finds contract-measuring-rod theory available under RIMWA as well; plaintiffs must plead accordingly |
| Statute of limitations / willfulness | Plaintiffs seek three-year willful FLSA period | Defendants dispute sufficiency to plead willfulness | Court did not decide willfulness given dismissal on merits; plaintiffs may allege it in amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergemann v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 665 F.3d 336 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard of review on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1988) (plaintiff must allege elements of actionable theory)
- United States v. Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960) (origin of the weekly measuring-rod dictum)
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (First Circuit decision discussing related FLSA issues)
- Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance, 814 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Mass. 2011) (district court adopting an hourly/contract approach to minimum-wage claims)
- Dove v. Coupe, 759 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (discussing FLSA purpose and measuring-rod analysis)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (FLSA remedial purpose and protective tenor)
- Rosenwasser v. United States, 323 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1944) (FLSA coverage for non-hourly pay methods)