450 F.Supp.3d 162
D. Conn.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are home health aides (HHWs) employed by Humana who worked either live-in 24-hour shifts or non-live-in hourly shifts; suit was filed Nov. 2015 and classes certified in March 2019.
- Central legal change: DOL regulation 29 C.F.R. §552.109 (effective Jan. 1, 2015) removed a third-party employer exemption for companionship services, creating new overtime eligibility.
- Primary factual disputes: how many hours to credit per 24-hour live-in shift (plaintiffs press 24 hours; minimum statutory credit is 13 hours if bona fide, regularly scheduled sleep/meals are excluded under 29 C.F.R. §785.22); whether parties had an agreement satisfying §785.22; and whether live-in pay is a day rate or hourly rate.
- Defendants assert reliance on DOL administrative actions/non-enforcement and raise good-faith/Portal-to-Portal defenses and limits on liquidated damages; they also contest relation-back and statute-of-limitations for New York claims.
- Court outcome in summary judgment stage: motions granted in part, denied in part, and certain issues deferred; key factual questions (existence/contents of agreement, bona fide/regularly scheduled sleep/meals, and day-rate vs hourly pay) preclude broad summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hours credited per live-in shift for overtime (FLSA/CMWA/NYLL) | HHWs should be credited with 24 hours per live-in shift (alternatively at least 13 hours). | Humana claims agreement/existing practice excludes bona fide scheduled sleep/meals (allowing credit as low as 13 or fewer compensable hours); sometimes paid as day rate. | Denied summary judgment for 24-hour credit due to genuine factual disputes; granted to plaintiffs as to 13-hour minimum credit for eligibility during Effective Date period. |
| Calculation of the regular rate (day-rate v. hourly) | Regular rate should follow hourly/weekly-pay division; plaintiffs argue live-in pay is hourly for calculation. | Defendants contend live-in pay is a day rate (compensating all hours), affecting overtime rate (half-time). | Denied summary judgment to both sides; genuine issue whether live-in pay was day rate or hourly precludes decision. |
| Good-faith/Portal-to-Portal defense and liquidated damages | Plaintiffs contend defendants lacked objectively reasonable good-faith basis and did not take steps to ensure compliance. | Defendants assert reliance on pre-2015 regs and DOL non-enforcement policy; seek defense to liability and to liquidated damages. | Denied defendants’ summary judgment on good-faith liability defense and on liquidated damages; factual issues preclude judgment for defendants. |
| Statute of limitations / relation back for NY claims | Plaintiffs contend NY claims (post-1/1/2015 overtime) relate back to original complaint; also seek recovery for pre-1/1/2015 unpaid straight time (NY Unpaid Hours Class). | Defendants argue NY claims (especially pre-1/1/2015 straight-time claims) are time-barred and do not relate back. | Post-1/1/2015 NY overtime claims relate back and survive; NY claims alleging unpaid straight time before Jan. 1, 2015 do not relate back and are dismissed as to that earlier period (class period adjusted accordingly). |
| Gap-time (unpaid straight time) claims under CMWA/NYLL | Plaintiffs seek gap-time recovery at regular rate for uncompensated straight time during live-in shifts. | Defendants argue no gap-time claim exists under federal law and challenge state-law gap recovery. | Court denies summary judgment for plaintiffs on gap-time claims; complaint did not plead a Connecticut gap-time cause and Article 19 NY statutory language does not support recovery of regular-rate gap-time in this posture. |
| Offsets / application of overpayments to other weeks | Plaintiffs seek full recovery; defendants seek offsets for alleged overpayments across weeks. | Defendants argue offsets available under 29 C.F.R. provisions and cumulative application. | Court defers ruling on offsets pending further development; skeptical given Second Circuit tendencies but declines decision now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinkead v. Humana at Home, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 338 (D. Conn. 2019) (prior class-certification and case history)
- Kinkead v. Humana, Inc., 206 F. Supp. 3d 751 (D. Conn. 2016) (earlier ruling on effective date and FLSA applicability)
- Home Care Ass’n of Am. v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding DOL caregiver regulation)
- Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 152 (N.Y. 2019) (NY Court of Appeals upholding NYSDOL interpretation of sleep/meal exclusions for 24-hour shifts)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (summary judgment review requires viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (work time definition; compensable activities primarily for employer)
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) (defining the FLSA "regular rate")
- Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Home Ins. Co., 672 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1982) (Portal-to-Portal Act good-faith reliance defense elements)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willfulness toll extends FLSA statute of limitations)
- Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing gap-time claims from overtime claims)