Giallanzo v. City of New York
630 F.Supp.3d 439
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiff Robert Giallanzo worked for NYC DOT from 1988, progressing from Highway Repairer (HR) to Supervisor Highway Repairer (SHR) and in 2005 to Area Supervisor (AS-I, later AS-II); he retired January 14, 2020.
- At retirement Giallanzo claimed 837 hours 50 minutes of unused compensatory time and sought a cash buyout for those hours as unpaid overtime under the FLSA; he calculated the value at $54.92/hr (~$46,012).
- The City conceded liability only for 59 hours 30 minutes labeled "CT (FLSA)" (pre-AS HR/SHR overtime) and contended the remainder (778:20) shown as "COMP TIME" reflected non‑FLSA or contractually different compensatory time and/or time earned while in an FLSA‑exempt AS role.
- Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the City summary judgment and granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability but leaving damages for trial; the City objected primarily on the executive‑exemption and evidentiary points.
- The District Court: (a) denied the City’s partial summary judgment motion in full, (b) granted plaintiff summary judgment as to liability only for the undisputed 59:30 CT (FLSA) hours, (c) held the executive‑exemption claim has triable issues (particularly whether plaintiff’s recommendations carried “particular weight”), (d) admitted DOT payroll witness Goldberg’s declaration for summary‑judgment purposes but left its credibility to the jury, and (e) kept the meaning of "COMP TIME" and liquidated damages for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AS role is covered by FLSA or exempt under the executive exemption | Giallanzo: AS not exempt; he worked overtime and accrued compensatory time eligible for buyout | City: AS duties satisfy all four DOL factors for the executive exemption, so post‑2005 overtime not FLSA covered | Triable issue. Court found salary, primary‑duty (management), and directing ≥2 employees satisfied, but disputed whether plaintiff's recommendations carried "particular weight" — jury to decide |
| Salary‑basis test for exemption | Giallanzo: was effectively paid hourly; payroll items and leave expressed in hours support non‑salaried status | City: CBAs set a fixed, biweekly salary above the regulatory threshold; no evidence of improper deduction practice | City met its burden at summary judgment; no genuine dispute plaintiff was paid on a salary basis while an AS |
| Whether plaintiff "customarily and regularly" directed ≥ two employees | Giallanzo: disputes frequency/extent | City: daily duties (assigning, inspecting, supervising crews; HR functions) show regular direction of multiple employees | Court held City proved this element; reasonable jury could only find plaintiff customarily directed ≥ two employees |
| Whether plaintiff's hiring/firing recommendations were given "particular weight" | Giallanzo: his recommendations were not given particular weight in practice | City: plaintiff initiated disciplinary process, made evaluations and recommendations that were important to personnel decisions | Triable issue. Evidence is thin on both sides; Court found a genuine factual dispute for the jury |
| Meaning of pay‑stub categories: "COMP TIME" vs "CT (FLSA)" | Giallanzo: "COMP TIME" includes unpaid FLSA overtime that should be cashed out | City: "CT (FLSA)" are FLSA overtime hours; "COMP TIME" reflects contractually distinct leave (non‑FLSA or V‑Status usage) | Triable issue. Court admitted payroll declaration but found credibility and interpretation of codes fact questions for the jury |
| Liquidated damages (good faith defense) | Giallanzo: City acted without good faith; requests liquidated damages | City: acted in good faith, reasonably relied on classification and offered V‑Status option | Triable issue. Court denied summary judgment on liquidated damages and reserved assessment for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2012) (employer bears burden to prove FLSA exemption)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) (FLSA exemptions must be given a fair reading as part of the statute’s scheme)
- Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (1986) (distinguishing factual findings about how employees spent their time from legal question whether activities are exempt)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and the court's role in weighing evidence)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference principles regarding agency interpretations in certain contexts cited for regulatory framework)
- Jibowu v. Target Corp., 492 F. Supp. 3d 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (summary judgment appropriate when all four executive‑exemption requirements are satisfied)