638 F.Supp.3d 159
D. Conn.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (three named PCAs and an opt-in) worked as live-in caregivers for CareOne; Abel Osagie, sole owner, is the only appearing defendant. CareOne (LLC) has not appeared through counsel; default motion remains pending.
- Plaintiffs were paid $1,960 biweekly; they say this reflected a $140 daily flat rate; defendant says he applied food-and-housing credits and calculated overtime differently.
- Plaintiffs allege frequent sleep interruptions by clients and unpaid overtime; they did not record interruptions in CareOne’s systems but say they orally informed Osagie; Osagie disputes being told.
- Defendant claims he properly credited value of food/housing and that plaintiffs agreed (or were subject to) 13-hour workdays under DSS Procedure Code 1023z.
- Court considered defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denied summary judgment on most substantive wage and counterclaim issues, granted limited statute-of-limitations rulings, and gave 56(f) notice on negligence/negligence-per-se counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were paid required overtime for undisputed hours | Pay of $140/day did not include proper overtime | Biweekly $1,960 wage, after food/housing credits, properly accounted for overtime | Genuine disputes of material fact; summary judgment denied to defendant |
| Whether interrupted sleep time is compensable work | Interrupted sleep (under 29 C.F.R. §785.22) was work and unpaid | Plaintiffs had (oral/implied) agreement limiting work to 13 hours/day; sleep excluded | Disputed factual issues (frequency of interruptions and employer knowledge) preclude summary judgment |
| Whether defendant validly took food-and-housing (§203(m)) credit | No adequate records; maximum regulatory credit applies; larger deductions unlawful | Used clients’ expenses or market estimates to compute credits | Material factual dispute about recordkeeping and credit size; summary judgment denied |
| FLSA statute of limitations / willfulness | Defendants’ conduct may be willful -> 3‑year period; equitable tolling argued | Not willful; employer posted notices and provided handbook so no tolling | Court denied summary judgment on willfulness; granted that equitable tolling is inappropriate (no recovery before June 2, 2017) |
| Liquidated damages under FLSA | Seek liquidated damages as norm if violations proven | Claims acted in good faith; no liquidated damages | Issue for jury; summary judgment denied on liquidated damages question |
| CMWA: whether Osagie is an "employer" and statute of limitations | Osagie had authority over pay/hours and so qualifies | Supervision was shared with clients; not an employer under CMWA | Jury question on employer status; CMWA claims time-barred before June 2, 2018 (two-year limit) |
| Defendant’s state-law counterclaims (fraud/negligent misrep./negligence/negligence per se) | Plaintiffs failed to report hours/sleep interruptions causing DSS reimbursement loss | Plaintiffs did not falsify/owe duties; factual disputes about notice and damages | Summary judgment denied on misrepresentation and negligence claims; court will consider sua sponte summary judgment for plaintiffs on negligence and negligence-per-se (Rule 56(f)) after briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard; credibility and weighing are jury functions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden in summary judgment; pointing to absence of proof)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (burden-shifting when employer fails to keep wage/hour records)
- Walling v. Youngerman–Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1945) (definition of the FLSA regular rate)
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (employer’s nondelegable duty to keep accurate records; proof of overtime)
- Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (definition of compensable work time)
- Herman v. RSR Security Services Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (expansive definition of employer and liquidated-damages framework)