Savinova v. Nova Home Care, LLC
3:20-cv-01612
D. Conn.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Twenty-six live-in caregivers sued Nova Home Care, LLC and others for unpaid overtime and wage law violations under the FLSA and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
- Five plaintiffs raised claims that Nova improperly deducted wage time for meal and personal breaks (“break time claims”); Judge Nagala previously dismissed their “sleep time claims” as time-barred under the statute of limitations.
- The court determined a two-year statute of limitations generally applies to FLSA claims, extended to three years if the violation is willful. Equitable tolling is available in extraordinary circumstances.
- The five plaintiffs' last day of work at Nova was more than three years before joining the case, making their claims untimely unless equitable tolling applied.
- The plaintiffs argued for equitable tolling largely because Nova allegedly failed to post required notices in the plaintiffs’ workplaces (clients’ homes), compounded by isolation and language issues.
- Nova presented evidence it posted FLSA notices at its offices and argued that there is no requirement to post in client homes. The court found the evidence insufficient to warrant equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations (FLSA claims) | Plaintiffs' break time claims should use a three-year limit for willfulness, and further tolling should apply | Only a two- or three-year limit applies; these claims are time-barred | Three-year statutory limit applies, but claims are still untimely |
| Equitable Tolling Standard | Tolling should apply due to lack of posted FLSA notice, employee isolation, and language barriers | Notices were posted at office; no duty to post in clients’ homes; tolling not justified | Tolling not warranted; office posting sufficient; no extraordinary circumstances |
| Notice Posting Requirements | FLSA notices should have been posted in client homes where live-in caregivers worked | Law requires notice at employer’s place of business, not client homes | No requirement to post in clients’ homes |
| Language Barrier | Plaintiffs' limited English should affect tolling analysis | Plaintiffs never established they could not understand posted notices | No evidence of complete language barrier; argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (Supreme Court articulates "willfulness" standard for FLSA statute of limitations extension)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment)
- Veltri v. Bldg. Serv. 32B-J Pension Fund, 393 F.3d 318 (Second Circuit holding on the standard and scope of equitable tolling)
- Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201 (Second Circuit on burden to prove "willfulness" under the FLSA)
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (Second Circuit case: willfulness and factual questions in FLSA cases)