DeSilva v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.
770 F. Supp. 2d 497
| E.D.N.Y | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege LIJ system-wide wage and hour violations under FLSA, NYLL, ERISA, RICO, and NY common law on behalf of 38,000+ employees.
- Plaintiffs claim LIJ maintained policies (meal-break deductions, unpaid pre/post-schedule work, unpaid training) that deprived workers of full compensation, including overtime.
- Named plaintiffs worked at LIJ hospitals and affiliates; SAC provides positions, facilities, and employment periods after court directed limited details.
- Court granted in part and denied in part LIJ’s motion to dismiss; FLSA overtime claims and NYLL claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts showing hours and wages.
- RICO claim preempted by FLSA to the extent it seeks overtime, but may survive as to non-overtime “straight time” wages; ERISA and state common law claims are subject to preemption and pleading requirements; LMRA preemption unresolved pending amended pleadings.
- Court allowed leave to re-plead some claims, denied expedited notice as moot, and set framework for limited discovery on ERISA plan terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLSA overtime claim is adequately pled | LJ failed to plead hours worked and overtime specifics. | SAC lacks facts showing overtime hours and which shifts were unpaid. | FLSA overtime claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of plausible pleading. |
| Whether FLSA preemption bars RICO and state-law claims | RICO and state claims are independent of FLSA, not preempted. | FLSA precludes duplicative RICO and state claims; Savings Clause insufficient to avoid preemption. | RICO precluded to the extent duplicative of FLSA overtime; non-overtime RICO may survive but is dismissed for pleading defects; state common law claims duplicative of FLSA are preempted; straight-time claims not duplicative may go forward, subject to pleading. |
| ERISA claims exhaustion and fiduciary duties | ERISA claims should proceed; exhaustion waived for statutory claims or futile remedies. | Recordkeeping claim requires exhaustion; fiduciary claim requires discovery on plan terms. | Recordkeeping claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion; breach of fiduciary duty claim survived for further development pending discovery; limited discovery ordered on controlling ERISA plans. |
| LMRA preemption applicability | CBAs may implicate LMRA preemption; court should preempt claims tied to union agreements. | LMRA preemption applicable; need specific unionized status of named plaintiffs. | LMRA preemption not decided; amended complaint required to identify unionization and potential CBA-driven claims. |
| RICO standing and pleading specificity | RICO standing shown by injuries from wage theft; predicate acts support claim. | Injuries are speculative and predicate acts not causally proximate; claims fail Rule 9(b) particularity. | RICO standing and pleading deficiencies cited; leave to replead granted if plaintiffs choose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Doe, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard addressing sufficient factual allegations)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged approach: discard bare conclusions; plausibility of claim)
- Herman v. RSR Security Services, Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.1999) (FLSA remedial scheme exclusive; preemption of state remedies)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (4th Cir.2007) (FLSA remedial scheme exclusive; preemption of contract, negligence, fraud claims)
- Kendall v. City of Chesapeake, 174 F.3d 437 (4th Cir.1999) (FLSA exclusive remedies; precludes §1983 claims for overtime)
- Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 874 F. Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (proximate causation; direct relation required for RICO injuries)
- Holmes v. S.E.C., 503 U.S. 258 (U.S.1992) (proximate causation standard in RICO analysis)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983 (U.S.2010) (proximate causation; direct relation between conduct and injury)
- Pac. Capital Bank, N.A. v. Connecticut, 542 F.3d 341 (2d Cir.2008) (illustrates preemption concepts in RICO/FLSA context)
- DePace v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 257 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (ERISA exhaustion and futility considerations)