31 F. Supp. 3d 618
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiffs filed a purported class action alleging FLSA violations for misclassification of Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) as exempt from overtime.
- B & N classified ASMs as exempt nationwide until July 1, 2010, after which ASMs were reclassified as nonexempt.
- Trimmer (Tribeca, 2007–2013) and Philbin (Virginia Beach/Chesapeake) claim they regularly worked more than 40 hours weekly.
- Job Description for ASMs listed many supervisory and managerial duties, with plaintiffs admitting some duties were performed.
- Plaintiffs contend they spent most time on nonexempt tasks (customer service, cash handling, cafe work) and had limited true discretion.
- Defendants seek summary judgment arguing proper exemption, or that any willful violation supports a longer statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are ASMs exempt under the administrative exemption? | Trimmer/Philbin performed labor relations and HR duties qualifying for direct management-related work. | ASMs exercised discretion and independent judgment in duties like staffing and handling refunds, meeting the administrative criteria. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on administrative exemption. |
| Are ASMs exempt under the executive exemption? | ASMs directed two or more employees and influenced hiring, firing, and performance. | Discretion and weight given to recommendations for personnel actions are unclear; not clearly satisfied. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on executive exemption. |
| Is the plaintiffs’ primary duties analysis dispositive for either exemption? | Plenty of nonexempt tasks dominate time; primary duty not met. | Administrative/executive duties could still be primary under regulations, despite time spent. | Issues of primary duty factually unresolved; summary judgment denied on both exemptions. |
| Is the FLSA claim barred by statute of limitations or willfulness? | Willfulness shown by California misclassification and awareness of duties; three-year window applies. | No clear willfulness; reliance on defense beliefs and lack of lawyer consultation. | Willfulness question survives; two- vs. three-year limitations dispute unresolved; claim not time-barred. |
| What is the status of the NYLL claim and supplemental jurisdiction? | NYLL mirrors FLSA exemptions and should be considered; supplemental jurisdiction remains appropriate. | If FLSA fails, NYLL should be dismissed; jurisdiction points moot if FLSA dismissed. | NYLL claim remains and supplemental jurisdiction not waived; both denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willfulness standard for FLSA violations requires actual knowledge or reckless disregard)
- Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) (willfulness shown where employer was on notice of obligations but failed to act)
- Scott Wetzel Servs. Inc. v. N.Y. State Bd. of Indus. Appeals, 252 A.D.2d 212 (1998) (NYLL exemptions referencing FLSA standards; court discusses interplay)