Schwartz v. City of New York
1:19-cv-05204
S.D.N.Y.Jun 3, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Jacob Schwartz worked for NYC Department of Design and Construction from May 2015 to May 2017 as a provisional employee with a 35‑hour workweek and the ability to “bank” overtime as Comp Time.
- At termination (May 20, 2017) Schwartz’s final paycheck (June 2, 2017) reported 457 hours of Comp Time and additional holiday hours and annual leave; he was not paid those amounts at regular or overtime rates.
- Schwartz sued the City asserting (1) FLSA and NYC Admin. Code § 12‑108 overtime violations, (2) breach of an oral contract for payment of Comp Time, and (3) quantum meruit.
- The City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended dismissing all claims except the FLSA claim.
- District Judge Torres adopted the R&R: dismissing the § 12‑108 claim (employment manual is not a statute/local law) and dismissing the contract and quantum meruit claims because a terminated public employee must first pursue an Article 78 proceeding (and the four‑month limitations period had passed); the FLSA claim survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of NYC Admin. Code § 12‑108 (whether DDC manual establishes a “maximum number of hours”) | Schwartz points to the DDC employee manual prescribing a 35‑hour week as the maximum. | The manual is not a "statute, general, special or local" prescription required by § 12‑108. | Manual is not a statutory/local prescription; § 12‑108 claim dismissed. |
| Whether breach of oral contract / quantum meruit claims by a terminated public employee can proceed without an Article 78 | Schwartz says he seeks only money (not reinstatement) so Article 78 is unnecessary. | The City argues damages for a terminated public employee require a prior successful Article 78 proceeding. | Court follows Finley: terminated employees must pursue Article 78 before damages claims; contract/quantum meruit claims dismissed. |
| Accrual and timeliness of Article 78 claims | Schwartz contends accrual timing is unclear for his claims. | City notes Article 78 has a four‑month limitations period that began on plaintiff’s last paycheck (June 2, 2017). | Court rejects new accrual arguments and holds the four‑month limitations period applies and has lapsed. |
| Standard of review for R&R objections | Schwartz raises objections to the R&R. | City urges deferential review where objections merely repeat prior arguments. | Court applied de novo review where appropriate and clear‑error otherwise; overruled Schwartz’s objections and adopted the R&R. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (antitrust pleading standard articulating plausibility principle)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (defining the "clear error" standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Yourman v. Dinkins, 826 F. Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (dismissing § 12‑108 claim where plaintiffs pointed to no statute or local law fixing a 35‑hour workweek)
- Finley v. Giacobbe, 79 F.3d 1285 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding a discharged public employee must pursue a successful Article 78 for reinstatement before bringing a damages claim)
- Gerber v. NYC Hous. Auth., 42 N.Y.2d 162 (1977) (distinguishing suspension claims from termination claims for recovery of back pay)