552 F.Supp.3d 433
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: 2,519 current/former FDNY EMTs and Paramedics sued under the FLSA alleging unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work.
- After a three-week trial, a unanimous jury found the City/FDNY violated the FLSA, that the CityTime system accurately captured unpaid minutes, and that the violations were willful.
- District court entered final judgment awarding $17,780,063 (backpay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees).
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) for JMOL or, alternatively, for a new trial/remittitur under Rule 59, challenging liability, willfulness, collective certification/similarly situated status, evidentiary rulings, expert testimony, certain jury instructions, and the damages award.
- Key record evidence the court relied on: testimony that thousands complained in 2005, FDNY drafted Command Orders in 2008 but did not issue them until 2014, overtime code for narcotics work implemented in 2016, and supervisor performance evaluations praising pre-shift work.
- Court denied Defendants’ post-trial motions, finding the jury had sufficient evidence and no basis to overturn credibility findings or disturb the damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an FDNY-wide unlawful policy/practice permitting unpaid pre/post-shift work | Evidence of widespread testimony, draft 2008 orders not implemented, supervisor praise, CityTime records show unpaid minutes | No written operative policy; testimony flawed or impeached; insufficient evidence to establish systematic policy | Court: reasonable juror could infer a de facto systematically-applied practice; JMOL denied |
| Willfulness of FLSA violation | City was put on notice (2005 complaints), failed to act on drafts, delayed corrective measures — supports knowledge or reckless disregard | Lack of actual knowledge; underpayment relatively small as percentage | Court: jury reasonably found willfulness given notice and inaction; holding stands |
| Collective action / "similarly situated" status | Plaintiffs were subject to a common policy/practice making them common victims | Individualized differences among opt-ins defeat collective treatment | Court: prior conditional certification and jury finding of common policy sustain similarly situated determination |
| Admission re: prior litigation (Conzo) / notice evidence | Plaintiffs may show City was on notice of prior complaints (but not reference prior suit by name) | Allowing "on notice" references improperly insinuated prior lawsuits and prejudiced Defendants | Court: limited "on notice" evidence admissible to show notice/willfulness; no abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of expert Dr. Lanier | His methodology and opinions were disclosed; weight for jury to assess | Timeliness/Daubert and reliability challenges to his testimony | Court: Daubert challenge untimely post-judgment and prior rulings left challenges to weight; testimony admissible |
| Evidence from Rule 30(b)(6) depositions / impeachment of Chief Fields | Plaintiffs may impeach Chief Fields with prior 30(b)(6) testimony per stipulation | Impeachment method was prejudicial; sought curative instruction | Court: stipulation permitted impeachment; Defendants failed to prepare witness; no curative instruction warranted |
| Jury instruction on de minimis time for equipment exchange | Time exchanging equipment is compensable; jury to determine minutes | Defendants: judge erred by instructing it was not de minimis | Court: issue previously decided at summary judgment; instruction proper under law of the case |
| Excessiveness of damages / verdict form wording | Backpay (esp. CityTime-based minutes) is excessive or misleadingly calculated by verdict questions | CityTime accurately captured unpaid minutes; limited contradictory testimony doesn't undermine award | Court: award not so excessive as to shock conscience; verdict and questions were adequate; no remittitur or new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rule 50 motion timing and requirements)
- Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020) (policy or practice need not be written; must be systematically applied)
- Emamian v. Rockefeller Univ., [citation="823 F. App'x 40"] (2d Cir. 2020) (standard for JMOL review)
- Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2009) (definition of willful FLSA violations)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (willfulness standard under FLSA)
- Manley v. AmBase Corp., 337 F.3d 237 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for new trial under Rule 59)
- DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1998) (trial court’s discretion in weighing evidence on a new trial motion)
- Amorgianos v. Amtrak, 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (timeliness of Daubert challenges)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (continuous workday rule and compensable activities)
- Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard for setting aside jury damages award)