Winfield v. Citibank, N.A.
2012 WL 266887
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are former Citibank personal bankers classified as non-exempt and claimed unpaid overtime under FLSA and state laws.
- Plaintiffs allege Citibank acted as plan sponsor and fiduciary of the Citigroup 401(K) Plan under ERISA, with contributions based on compensation paid, including overtime.
- Dispute centers on whether Plan contributions are tied to compensation paid or hours worked; plaintiffs allege hours worked were not credited as eligible compensation.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to credit overtime hours and to obtain records of hours worked; Shen also seeks a California-law subclass claim.
- Defendant moves to dismiss ERISA record-keeping and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, dismiss Shen’s California claim and strike class allegations, and strike injunctive-relief claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA record-keeping claim lies under 209(a)(1) or 502(a)(3). | Plaintiffs seek equitable relief for failure to maintain records of hours worked. | No private right of action under 209(a)(1); 502(a)(3) does not permit a damages/record-keeping claim. | Dismissed; record-keeping claim cannot proceed under 209(a)(1) or 502(a)(3). |
| Whether ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is viable where overtime isn’t credited because benefits are based on paid compensation. | Defendant breached fiduciary duties by failing to credit overtime hours as eligible compensation. | Crediting hours worked is not a fiduciary function when benefits are determined by paid compensation. | Dismissed with prejudice; no fiduciary breach where plan defines benefits by pay. |
| Whether Shen's California state-law claim and related class allegations should be addressed and/or abstained. | California claim should proceed; class allegations are viable. | Colorado River abstention and Rule 23 issues require dismissal or strike of class allegations. | Colorado River abstention denied (individual claim can proceed); class-allegation-striking denied as premature. |
| Whether injunctive-relief claims should be stricken for lack of standing at this stage. | Injunctive relief is appropriate for ongoing relief and not limited to former employees. | Named plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief since they are former employees. | Standing objections deferred to class-certification stage; injunctive-relief claims not struck at this time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dun & Bradstreet Corp. v. McCarthy, 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading standards; plausible claim standard under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1993) (private rights and relief under ERISA analyzed)
- Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (ERISA record-keeping claim treated as potential benefits claim; exhaustion discussed)
- De Silva v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (hours worked vs. compensation in ERISA; fiduciary-duty scope)
- Henderson v. UPMC, 640 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2011) (records necessary to determine benefits under ERISA plan)
- Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989) (ERISA mismanagement focus; wages and benefits context)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (fact-pleading standard; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
- Brown v. Barrus, N/A (N/A) (not an official reporter; included for context only)