176 F. Supp. 3d 290
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Plaintiff Raul Padilla worked as an ophthalmic technician for Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C. and Dr. Sheldon Rabin, paid $35/hour and often worked more than 40 hours/week without overtime.
- Padilla lacks a college degree but has two-year ophthalmic dispensing education, certifications (Certified Ophthalmic Assistant, certified refractionist), continuing education requirements, and long on-the-job experience.
- Payroll checks were issued by the Practice; Rabin set pay rates and exercised operational control. Defendants concede FLSA coverage for summary judgment purposes.
- Dispute centers on whether Padilla is exempt under the FLSA and NYLL as a "learned professional," implicating (1) the FLSA salary‑basis test and (2) the primary‑duty test.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; Court granted plaintiff summary judgment that FLSA salary‑basis test was not met, denied other relief and denied defendants’ motion; remaining factual issues (primary duty under NYLL, willfulness, liquidated damages) reserved for jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of FLSA learned‑professional exemption (salary basis) | Padilla was hourly‑paid and not guaranteed a weekly salary, so exemption fails | Rabin argues pay met salary requirement under regulations allowing hourly computation and permissible deductions | Held: Salary‑basis test not satisfied; no FLSA learned‑professional exemption — plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on this point |
| Applicability of learned‑professional exemption (primary duty / NYLL primary duty) | Padilla says duties are largely mechanical, no discretion, lower‑level certification | Rabin contends Padilla’s certifications, training, and discretion support exemption; NYLL does not require salary test | Held: Primary‑duty question is fact‑intensive and unresolved on summary judgment; submitted to jury |
| Waiver of defense pleading learned‑professional exemption | Padilla contends defendants waived the exemption by not pleading it specifically earlier | Rabin points to affirmative defense in amended answer, counsel letter, and discovery practice giving notice | Held: No waiver; court exercises discretion to deem answer amended to plead the exemption |
| Willfulness and statute of limitations for FLSA claims | Padilla claims Practice acted with reckless disregard (no FLSA compliance steps) so 3‑year SOL applies | Rabin points to asserted policies and efforts to comply; disputes about who decided overtime policy | Held: Genuine factual dispute exists; willfulness reserved for jury (no summary judgment) |
| Liquidated damages (FLSA & NYLL) | Padilla seeks liquidated damages; argues defendants lack good‑faith basis | Rabin argues they acted in good faith and took steps to comply | Held: Triable issues remain; liquidated damages determination reserved for jury |
| Joint liability of Dr. Rabin | Padilla seeks to hold Rabin individually liable as employer | Defendants concede operational control; argue otherwise earlier | Held: Rabin found to have sufficient operational control; potentially jointly liable (for summary judgment purposes defendants concede coverage) |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2009) (FLSA exemptions construed narrowly; employer bears burden)
- Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (individual liability where operational control over employment found)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willfulness standard: employer knew or showed reckless disregard)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (employer bears heavy burden to show good faith to avoid liquidated damages)
- Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (salary‑basis principles; salary generally must be paid irrespective of hours worked)
- Anani v. CVS Rx. Servs., Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (summary of salary‑basis test under §541.602)