Rathod v. Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture PLLC

Background

Vinita Rathod sued Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture PLLC and Nikki Yu under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Rathod alleged that she worked as a physical therapist for Defendants from September 21, 2021, through March 1, 2023. She alleged that Defendants required her to pay the cost of her H-1B visa filings, failed to pay her for at least 12.5 days of work, failed to pay overtime for weeks in which she worked more than 40 hours, and arbitrarily changed her regular and overtime rates.

Rathod also alleged that Defendants did not provide compliant wage notices or wage statements. She further alleged that Yu told her she would not be paid for work performed between February 12 and March 2, 2023, because of a penalty in her employment contract after Rathod decided to leave.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

FLSA Overtime Claim

The court denied dismissal of Rathod’s FLSA overtime claim. Rathod alleged that she worked more than 40 hours during at least three specific weeks in March and June 2022 and was not paid one-and-a-half times her regular rate for the excess hours. The court held that the FLSA did not require her to provide a week-by-week recounting or an exact approximation of every overtime hour at the pleading stage.

The court also declined to decide that Rathod was exempt from the FLSA. It concluded that her allegations described hourly rather than salaried pay, defeating the salary requirement for the professional exemption. The court also found that the complaint did not establish, at this stage, that Rathod fell within the exemption for licensed medical professionals. The court did not consider Defendants’ employment contract or other materials outside the complaint to resolve disputed facts.

NYLL Wage-Notice and Wage-Statement Claims

The court denied dismissal of Rathod’s claims under NYLL Sections 195(1) and 195(3), concerning required hiring notices and wage statements. The court held that Rathod plausibly alleged monetary harm because the missing or inaccurate information impaired her ability to determine whether she had been properly paid and to raise underpayment issues promptly. The court also rejected Defendants’ arguments that Rathod was not covered by the statute and that Defendants had provided compliant documents, explaining that those arguments depended on factual matters not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss.

NYLL Unlawful-Deduction Claim

The court denied dismissal of Rathod’s claim under NYLL Section 193. Rathod alleged that Defendants unlawfully required her to pay H-1B visa costs and withheld wages as a penalty for quitting. The court held that Section 193 covers not only deductions from wages but also impermissible payments made through separate transactions. It also noted that New York law prohibits deductions used as fines or penalties for an employee’s failure to give notice before quitting.

Claims Against Nikki Yu

The court denied Defendants’ request to dismiss the claims against Yu individually. Under the FLSA and NYLL, employer status depends on the actual economic relationship and relevant control over the employment. Rathod alleged that Yu hired and supervised her, controlled work conditions and policies, made decisions about her pay, and told her she would not be paid for a period after she resigned. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at this stage to allege that Yu was Rathod’s employer.

NYLL Minimum-Wage Claim and Leave to Amend

Rathod agreed that her NYLL minimum-wage claim should be dismissed. The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim.

The court granted Rathod leave to file a second amended complaint solely to add an FLSA minimum-wage claim. Rathod alleged that she worked at least 12.5 days between February 12 and March 1, 2023, without receiving any wages. The court declined to consider Defendants’ outside pay-stub evidence or resolve the resulting factual dispute at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and it found that Defendants had not shown that amendment would be futile or prejudicial.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Rathod’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint. Rathod was directed to file that complaint within seven days, and Defendants were directed to answer within fourteen days after it was filed. The opinion does not state that any claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.