Roseman v. Bloomberg, L.P.
1:14-cv-02657
S.D.N.Y.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Bloomberg’s Analytics Representatives (≈1,300 in New York since 2008) answer client chat inquiries about the Bloomberg Terminal; the role is described uniformly in recruitment/training materials and most employees perform similar core work.
- Representatives progress from Generalist to Specialist/Advanced Specialist, perform some non-chat tasks (training, writing, sales support), and are performance-rated via a Quality Control review process.
- Plaintiffs (led for the NY class by Alexander Lee) allege Bloomberg failed to pay overtime in violation of the New York Labor Law (NYLL); they seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of New York Analytics Representatives who were not paid overtime.
- Bloomberg relies on the NYLL/FLSA administrative-exemption defense (salary over threshold undisputed; dispute centers on primary duty and exercise of discretion).
- The district court evaluated Rule 23(a) numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority and concluded common issues—particularly the primary-duty question—are amenable to generalized proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed NY class is ascertainable and numerosity met | Class is defined objectively (NY Analytics Reps) and exceeds 40 members | N/A | Court: Ascertainable and numerosity satisfied |
| Commonality / Typicality / Adequacy for Rule 23(a) | Representatives share common title, training, duties, pay policy, and suffered same injury (unpaid overtime) | Differences in day-to-day tasks/complexity make claims atypical | Court: Commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied |
| Whether the administrative exemption (NYLL/FLSA) precludes class treatment (predominance) | Primary duty (responding to Terminal client inquiries) is common and can be proven with generalized evidence; individualized differences are not dispositive | Responsibilities and discretion vary across employees so individualized inquiries will predominate | Court: Predominance satisfied; primary duty can be resolved classwide and exemption defenses do not overwhelm common issues |
| Manageability and superiority of class litigation | Class adjudication is efficient, preserves resources, and common liability can be shown classwide; electronic records can support damage calculation | Individualized damages and time-on-task proof will make class unwieldy | Court: Class action is superior and manageable; individualized damages do not defeat certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir.) (predominance requires common issues susceptible to generalized proof and courts must consider defenses at certification)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Anchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S.) (predominance tests class cohesiveness and manageability)
- Johnson v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 780 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.) (common injury and classwide issues can satisfy Rule 23)
- Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates LLC, 780 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (liability may be determined classwide even with individualized damages)
- Gold v. New York Life Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.) (more-than-50%-time benchmark informs primary-duty inquiry)
- Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir.) (NYLL applies same exemptions as FLSA)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S.) (court decides certification questions without resolving merits)