Delorenzo v. Coffey
1:24-cv-01735
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jesse DeLorenzo worked as a private chef for Ania and Greg Coffey, receiving payment through Kirkoswald Asset Management LLC, from August 2021 to May 2022.
- He alleges working extensive hours (often 65-97.5 per week) without overtime pay and was provided no formal wage notices or statements.
- DeLorenzo claims he was underpaid, denied accurate documentation, and terminated for complaining about pay practices; he further alleges post-termination retaliation (opposing unemployment benefits).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing in part they were not “employers” under the FLSA or NYLL.
- The court assessed whether the allegations plausibly stated claims under the FLSA and NYLL, including claims for overtime, minimum wage, spread-of-hours, retaliation, wage notices/statements, and recordkeeping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employer Status | Coffeys and Kirkoswald exercised control, oversaw pay, and directed employment | Not employers under FLSA/NYLL; duties don’t apply | Sufficiently alleged—motion denied on this ground |
| Overtime Pay | Worked substantial overtime with no overtime compensation | Insufficient details about overtime hours | Adequately alleged—motion denied |
| Minimum Wage | Total pay did not meet minimum wage for all hours actually worked | Hourly average always exceeded federal and state minimum wage | Not below minimum wage—motion granted |
| Spread-of-Hours | Entitled as a "restaurant" or “hospitality” employee | Only minimum wage earners or specified industries qualify | Not covered—motion granted |
| Retaliation | Termination followed complaints on pay practices | No protected activity or specific complaints alleged | Insufficiently alleged—motion granted |
| Wage Notice/Statements Injury | Lack of accurate statements caused tangible informational harm | No concrete injury—merely informational | Harm sufficiently alleged—motion denied |
| Recordkeeping | Private right of action for recordkeeping violations | No private right of action exists | No private action—motion granted |
| Leave to Replead | Sought leave to amend dismissed claims | N/A | Denied as to futile claims but allowed for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (FLSA employer status interpreted broadly; economic reality controls)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (multi-factor "economic reality" test for employer status under FLSA)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (sets forth four-part test for FLSA employer status)
- Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99 (some Carter factors suffices to be employer under FLSA)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: claim must be plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (expounds Twombly plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Loc. 1549, 579 F.3d 187 (standards for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47 (prima facie elements of retaliation under FLSA/NYLL)