Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.
1:20-cv-02489
S.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, former field organizers for Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., sued the campaign in the Southern District of New York for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws.
- On March 31, 2025, the court issued a summary judgment opinion, partially granting and partially denying summary judgment—for example, declining to find as a matter of law that plaintiffs were not individually covered under the FLSA.
- The defendant (the Campaign) then filed two motions: (1) for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, and (2) for certification of an interlocutory appeal on certain issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The reconsideration motion centered on the court’s refusal to grant summary judgment on the question of FLSA individual coverage for field organizers.
- The interlocutory appeal motion sought to certify two issues: (a) whether entering data that crosses state lines triggers FLSA coverage, and (b) whether the First Amendment bars overtime laws for campaign workers.
- The court denied both motions in full, noting neither extraordinary circumstances nor controlling questions of law justifying reconsideration or interlocutory appeal were present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether field organizers are individually covered under the FLSA | Field organizers' actions (e.g., entering data in interstate systems) trigger FLSA coverage. | Entering data transmitted across state lines is insufficient for FLSA coverage; summary judgment should be granted. | Material fact disputes preclude summary judgment; defendant's motion denied. |
| Whether generally applicable overtime laws violate the First Amendment in the campaign context | FLSA and state labor laws do not trigger First Amendment scrutiny when generally applied. | Overtime laws unconstitutionally restrict campaign speech; First Amendment bars enforcement. | No substantial ground for difference of opinion; generally applicable laws do not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. |
| Criteria for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)/Local Rule 6.3 | No new evidence, change in law, or clear error to warrant reconsideration. | Court misread prior cases (Katz and Marcus) and erred on FLSA issue. | No overlooked law or manifest injustice; mere disagreement is insufficient. |
| Certification of interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) | No controlling law or substantial disagreement present; factual disputes preclude appeal. | Issues are controlling and could resolve the case or advance litigation. | No exceptional circumstances; factual disputes and lack of substantial legal disagreement bar certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virgin Atl. Airways Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (sets standard for reconsideration, emphasizing need for new law, evidence, or clear error)
- Westwood Pharms., Inc. v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 964 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1992) (explains strict standards for interlocutory appeal certification under § 1292(b))
- Flor v. BOT Fin. Corp., 79 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 1996) (interlocutory appeals are the exception, not the rule)
- Analytical Surv., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions for reconsideration not for relitigating old arguments)
- McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (campaign finance law triggers First Amendment scrutiny when targeting contributions, not generally applicable laws)