Whiteside v. Hover-Davis-Inc., 995 F.3d 315

Whiteside worked at Hover-Davis from 1999–2018 as a salaried "Quality Engineer," but from Jan. 2012–Jan. 26, 2016 he performed the duties of a Repair Organization Technician.
Repair Organization Technicians were classified by Hover-Davis as non-exempt; Whiteside remained classified exempt, worked ~45–50 hours/week, and received no overtime pay.
Whiteside sued under the FLSA and other laws on Jan. 8, 2019; his Third Amended Complaint alleged unpaid overtime through Jan. 26, 2016.
The district court dismissed the FLSA claim as time-barred under the two‑year limitations period, finding Whiteside failed to plausibly allege willfulness needed to invoke the three‑year exception.
The Second Circuit reviewed whether a plaintiff must plead facts giving rise to a plausible inference of willfulness to obtain the three‑year limitations period and whether Whiteside met that standard.
The court held a plaintiff must plead facts plausibly showing willfulness and concluded Whiteside’s TAC failed to do so; it affirmed dismissal and upheld the district court’s declination to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an FLSA plaintiff must plead factual allegations to invoke the three‑year willfulness exception at the pleadings stage	Mere allegation of willfulness (a label) suffices; plaintiffs need not plead facts anticipating the limitations defense	Twombly/Iqbal require factual allegations supporting legal conclusions, including state of mind; mere labels insufficient	A plaintiff must allege facts permitting a plausible inference of willfulness to obtain the 3‑year period
Whether Whiteside plausibly alleged willfulness by alleging he performed non‑exempt work, supervisors knew, and he wasn’t paid overtime	Whiteside: supervisors knew he was doing Repair Technician work (a non‑exempt classification), he worked >40 hrs/week, and was not paid overtime — supports willfulness inference	Defendants: facts at most show negligent misclassification; absent allegations of knowledge, statements, complaints, or other indicia of reckless disregard, willfulness is implausible	Whiteside’s allegations were insufficient to plausibly infer willfulness (at most negligence); dismissal under 2‑year limitations affirmed
Appropriateness of declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims	(not contested on appeal)	District court declined pendent jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims early	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain factual allegations that make claims plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions; apply two‑pronged plausibility inquiry)
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (defined FLSA willfulness standard and rationale for two‑ versus three‑year limitations)
Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (plaintiff bears burden to prove willfulness)
Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2009) (willfulness requires knowledge or reckless disregard)
Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence may support willfulness at trial)
Reich v. S. New Eng. Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (good‑faith defense to liquidated damages requires substantial evidence)
Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008) (limitations is an affirmative defense but may be resolved on 12(b)(6) if apparent on face)
Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (claim may be dismissed where complaint clearly shows it is time‑barred)
Parada v. Banco Indus. De Venezuela, C.A., 753 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (insufficient evidence of willfulness at summary judgment)