Fleming v. Elliott Security Solutions, LLC
2:19-cv-02348
E.D. La.Jan 22, 2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Daphne Fleming and Brintney Jones allege they worked as security guards for Elliott Security Solutions and that defendants deducted uniform, state-licensing, and other expenses from paychecks, reducing wages below the $7.25 federal minimum.
- Plaintiffs also allege a “kickback” practice requiring employees to return uniforms upon separation to withhold final wages, and assert unpaid overtime and untimely wage payments.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (and alternatively for a more definite statement), arguing the complaint fails to plead the elements of FLSA claims or a collective action.
- The Court analyzed pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and FLSA claim elements, including the need to plead approximate dates and hours to estimate unpaid wages.
- The Court concluded plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory and speculative as to both individual FLSA claims and the proposed collective; it granted the 12(b)(6) motion but gave plaintiffs 21 days to file an amended complaint alleging a collective action.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FLSA wage claims (min wage & overtime) | Plaintiffs say defendants deducted pay and failed to pay overtime, violating FLSA | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing employer-employee coverage, specific violations, or amounts due | Court: Dismissed for failure to state an FLSA claim; allegations were conclusory |
| Pleading of amount/dates/hours owed | Plaintiffs allege unpaid wages but give no date ranges or hours worked | Without approximate dates/hours, plaintiffs cannot put defendant on notice of amounts owed | Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead the amount of unpaid wages with required particularity |
| Collective-action ("similarly situated") pleading | Plaintiffs assert putative collective had similar duties and common policies causing unpaid work | Defendants contend class allegations are conclusory and speculative | Court: Conclusory collective allegations insufficient at 12(b)(6); conditional certification premature; leave to amend 21 days or collective claims dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth)
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) (standards governing Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Johnson v. Heckmann Water Resources, Inc., 758 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements required to state an FLSA unpaid-wages/ overtime claim)
- Harvill v. Westward Commc'ns L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (employee must show work for which they were not compensated to satisfy FLSA coverage)
- Lang v. DirecTV, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 421 (E.D. La. 2010) (two-step collective-action framework and notice-stage standard)