Tokhtaman v. Human Care, LLC
52 N.Y.S.3d 89
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Plaintiff Tokhtaman worked for Human Care, LLC as a home health care attendant and alleged she "maintained her own residence" and did not live in clients' homes.
- Plaintiff alleged she "generally worked approximately 168 hours per week," i.e., effectively 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.
- Plaintiff sued for unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages, "spread of hours" pay, and breach of contract tied to contracts under Public Health Law § 3614-c.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing plaintiff was a live-in or residential employee and thus entitled to be paid for only 13 hours of each 24-hour shift under DOL guidance.
- The motion court denied the dismissal; the Appellate Division (1st Dept) affirmed, holding factual questions (e.g., whether plaintiff was a residential employee) preclude dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minimum wage/overtime/ wage claims must be dismissed because plaintiff is a "residential" or "live-in" employee and limited to 13 paid hours per 24-hour period | Tokhtaman alleges she did not live at employers' premises and so is entitled to full pay for hours worked | Human Care contends DOL guidance limits pay to 13 hours per 24-hour period for live-in/residential attendants | Denied dismissal — factual dispute whether plaintiff is residential; DOL opinion cannot be applied at motion-to-dismiss where allegations support nonresidential status |
| Whether the DOL March 11, 2010 opinion letter (13-hour rule) controls over 12 NYCRR § 142-2.1(b) | Plaintiff argues regulation, properly read, does not automatically limit pay for nonresidential employees | Defendant relies on DOL opinion that live-in employees may be paid 13 hours if sleep/meal conditions met | Court held DOL opinion conflicts with regulation by failing to distinguish residential vs. nonresidential employees; court will not follow that portion of the opinion at pleading stage |
| Whether the "spread of hours" claim should be dismissed | Tokhtaman contends she is entitled to spread pay if she must be paid for full 24-hour shifts | Defendant argues spread claim fails if 13-hour rule applies | Denied dismissal — viability of spread claim depends on residential status and whether full 24 hours must be paid |
| Whether breach of contract claim fails for lack of standing/ specificity | Tokhtaman asserts third-party beneficiary status under contracts required by Public Health Law § 3614-c and alleges wage promise | Human Care argues insufficient contract identification and plaintiff lacks standing | Denied dismissal — plaintiff has third-party beneficiary standing and breach allegations give adequate notice; citation to PHL § 3614-c identifies the relevant contract framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. Home Care v. New York State Dept. of Health, 5 NY3d 499 (explaining courts need not adopt regulatory constructions that conflict with plain regulatory language)
- Samiento v. World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70 (courts need not accept regulatory constructions that are irrational or unreasonable)
- Cox v. NAP Constr. Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 592 (recognizing third-party beneficiary standing in appropriate statutory-contract contexts)
- JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of N.Y., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802 (pleading requirements for breach of contract claims provide notice of nature of claim)
- Second Source Funding, LLC v. Yellowstone Capital, LLC, 144 A.D.3d 445 (contract pleading standards)
- Matter of Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State of New York, 108 A.D.3d 151 (context on contracts required for Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement under Public Health Law)