Napoli v. Deluxe Corporation
2:17-cv-06956
E.D.N.YJun 21, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Lena Napoli worked at Long Island "satellite offices" for Deluxe (June 2016–Mar 2017) and Safeguard (Apr 2017–Aug 2017), performing sales, customer service, office management, and related tasks.
- Napoli alleges she worked ~55 hours/week (some days up to 12 hours) and was never paid, and asserts FLSA and NYLL claims for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread of hours, and wage statement/statutory notice violations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Napoli failed to plausibly plead an employer–employee relationship and also sought dismissal for failure to join LAM as a necessary party.
- The amended complaint alleged only conclusory assertions that Deluxe and Safeguard supervised her, could terminate or alter her employment, and "were aware" of and consented to her schedule; it conceded defendants did not set her rate or maintain payroll records.
- The Court found the pleading lacked factual enhancement on key economic-reality/control factors and concluded it was implausible Napoli worked for 14+ months without any factual context showing an expectation of compensation from Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Napoli plausibly alleged an employer–employee relationship under FLSA/NYLL | Napoli alleges Defendants supervised/directed her, could terminate or alter employment, knew of and consented to her schedule, and never paid her | Defendants argue the complaint contains only conclusory allegations and lacks facts showing control (hiring/firing, payment, records, rate-setting) so no plausible employer status | Dismissed: Court held plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations satisfying the economic-reality/control factors; FLSA and related NYLL wage claims dismissed for failure to plead employer relationship |
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining NYLL claims (spread of hours, wage notices/statements) | Napoli sought to proceed on NYLL claims if federal claims dismissed | Defendants implied dismissal of federal claims would warrant dismissal of supplemental state claims | Declined: Court declined supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed; remaining NYLL claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend | Napoli requested leave to amend if pleading deficient | Defendants opposed, noting prior amendment and notice of deficiencies | Denied: Plaintiff already amended once after being warned, and offered no proposed additional facts to cure deficiencies |
| Whether documents referencing LAM (Transition Services/Asset Purchase) required joinder of LAM | Napoli signed documents as LAM president (in exhibits defendants submitted) | Defendants argued LAM is necessary/indispensable party | Not addressed substantively: Court declined to consider those documents on the motion because they were not integral to the amended complaint; dismissal rested on pleading failures rather than joinder analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must allege more than labels and conclusions)
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (standards for pleading FLSA/NYLL overtime claims)
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (economic‑reality test and multi‑factor analysis for employer status)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (factors for functional control/joint‑employer inquiry)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (four‑factor test: hire/fire, supervise schedules, set pay, keep records)
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2016) (internships: primary‑beneficiary test for employee status)
- Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947) (no employee where work is without promise/expectation of compensation)
- Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012) (FLSA protects workers from substandard conditions; economic‑reality analysis)