Henry v. Nannys for Grannys Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 155

Seven plaintiffs were home health aides for defendants’ senior care business in Suffolk County, NY, alleging unpaid minimum wage, overtime (FLSA & NYLL), and spread-of-hours (NYLL) claims.
Plaintiffs worked long shifts, were allegedly "on-call" 24 hours, and performed both patient care and household tasks; complaint alleges >20% of weekly hours spent on general household work (e.g., cooking, laundry, cleaning).
After suit, three plaintiffs (Henry, Bakare, Williams) were removed from or reassigned away from prior assignments; plaintiffs later added Williams and France and added retaliation claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss, principally arguing the companionship exemption to the FLSA/NYLL applies and that certain retaliation, class, and statute-of-limitations allegations fail.
The court excluded post-pleading affidavits submitted with opposition (treat-asa-summary-judgment issue) and evaluated the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether companionship exemption bars wage/hour claims	Plaintiffs allege >20% of time on general household work, so exemption inapplicable	Defendants say work is care-related companionship (not general household) so exemption applies	Denied: factual dispute over >20% and nature of tasks — exemption is an affirmative defense for discovery, not a basis to dismiss now
Whether certain plaintiffs stated retaliation claims	Plaintiffs assert retaliation by removal/reassignment for some named plaintiffs (Henry, Bakare, Williams)	Defendants say several plaintiffs (Francis, Dellemann, Morton, France) lack pleading on retaliation; Williams’ adverse act pre-dated her joining suit	Granted in part: retaliation claims dismissed for Francis, Dellemann, Morton, France; Williams’ retaliation claim also dismissed for lack of causal connection
Whether class/collective retaliation claims should be dismissed now	Plaintiffs asserted class/collective claims but have not moved for certification or notice	Defendants argue class/collective claims are deficient	Denied as premature: such issues are for certification stage, not 12(b)(6) dismissal
Whether FLSA claims outside two-year SOL should be dismissed	Plaintiffs allege willful violations extending SOL to three years	Defendants seek dismissal of older claims	Denied: willfulness properly pleaded generally and is fact issue for later stage

Reiseck v. Universal Commc’ns of Miami, Inc., 591 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (FLSA exemptions construed narrowly; employer bears burden to prove exemption)
Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (exemption is affirmative defense; plaintiffs need not plead non-exempt status at pleading stage)
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (definition of willfulness for FLSA three-year statute of limitations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (courts must accept well-pleaded factual allegations at motion to dismiss stage)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rabiner, 749 F.Supp.2d 94 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (dismissal appropriate only where plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)