922 F. Supp. 2d 278
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- FLSA collective action and 14-state wage class actions exist against RRSC and its parent Chemed.
- Motions before court: plaintiffs’ summary judgment, defendants’ summary judgment/decertification, plaintiffs’ motion to amend class definitions.
- RRSC provides plumbing services; Chemed is indirect parent; RRSC employs over 1,600 technicians.
- Planned claims fall into three categories: Business Expenses, Uncompensated Hours (time shaved and turn-in), and Illegal Deductions (call-backs).
- Prior proceedings certified a FLSA collective for Business Expense and Uncompensated Hours; state classes certified for liability only; discovery plaintiffs designated for representative discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chemed is an employer under FLSA/state law. | Chemed and RRSC are an integrated enterprise; integrated-employer theory applies. | Chemed lacks control over RRSC’s employment decisions; not an employer. | Chemed entitled to summary judgment; not an employer. |
| Class-wide viability of time-shaving claims. | Claims can be proven via class-wide records and representative testimony (queries). | Time-shaving requires individualized proof; not suitable for nationwide/state class-wide proof. | Time-shaving decertified for most of the class; Query 4 remains certified. |
| Class-wide viability of turn-in time claims. | Turn-in time can be proven with class-wide records and representative testimony. | Turn-in proofs require individualized inquiry due to varying practices. | Turn-in claims remain certified; not decertified. |
| Whether to grant summary judgment on Business Expense claims based on the 15% premium and substantiated expenses. | 15% premium should be deemed non-deductible; substantiated expenses cannot reduce wages below minimum. | Reasonable approximation allowed; disputes over actual expenses and timing. | Summary judgment on Business Expense claims denied; issue for trial; questions of reasonable-expense approximation and record-keeping remain. |
| Effect of Ita California settlement on California claims. | Ita release does not bar California minimum wage or post-August 2008 claims. | Ita release covers related claims prior to August 6, 2008; exceptions apply. | Ita release limits some California claims but does not bar minimum wage or pre-release claims; several California claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes require material facts)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (set of standards for summary judgment; evidence must show no genuine issue)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs., Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (economic reality test for employer status; factors include control and records)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (remedial nature of FLSA; broad interpretation of employer)
- Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne Inc., 69 F.3d 1235 (2d Cir. 1995) (criteria for integrated/economic-entire enterprise analysis)