Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC
726 F.3d 85
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Dejesus worked in Queens for HF Management Services, LLC (Healthfirst).
- She alleged Healthfirst failed to pay overtime under the FLSA and NYLL for three years prior to August 2011.
- Her duties included promoting Healthfirst programs and recruiting customers, with a commission in addition to a regular wage.
- She claimed overtime >40 hours per week in some weeks and improper compensation; some weeks paid overtime allegedly excluded commissions.
- Healthfirst moved to dismiss as outside salesperson exemption and failure to plead overtime with sufficient specificity; the district court granted dismissal without prejudice.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court and discussed pleading standards for FLSA overtime claims across Lundy, Nakahata, and related decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dejesus plausibly alleged unpaid overtime | Dejesus worked >40 hours weekly and was unpaid for overtime | Healthfirst exemptions and lack of specific overtime allegations bar claim | Overtime claim insufficiently pled; affirmed dismissal |
| Whether Dejesus adequately pled employee status | Dejesus pleaded employment relationship and duties | District court correctly analyzed status limitations | Plaintiff adequately pled employee status; guidance provided to district courts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (requires plausible 40-hour week with some uncompensated time to state a claim)
- Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., F.3d (2d Cir. 2013) (discusses specificity and plausibility of overtime allegations (published opinion not provided))
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (borderline pleadings fed into plausibility standard; not merely reciting statute)
- Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (employment as a flexible concept for pleading; broad interpretation of employee status)
- United States v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (Iqbal standard: pleadings must be plausible, not merely legal conclusions)