Adam v. Bloomberg L.P.

Background

Amber Adam, individually and for others similarly situated, brought a proposed group action against Bloomberg L.P. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Bloomberg failed to pay overtime and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Adam stated that she worked in Bloomberg’s Analytics Department from February 2019 through April 2021. Opt-in plaintiff Camryn Clemens stated that they worked in that department from April 2019 through March 2021. Both said they worked as “Help Desk Representatives” in New York City, providing customer service and technical support for Bloomberg’s software. They alleged that Help Desk Representatives were paid a fixed salary based on a 40-hour workweek, regularly worked more than 40 hours, and were not paid overtime.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective consisting of Help Desk Representatives in Bloomberg’s Analytics Department who were classified as exempt from overtime and were not paid time-and-a-half for hours over 40 in a week. Conditional certification is an early-stage procedure that can allow notice to be sent to potentially similar employees so they may choose to join the case.

Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended denying the motion without prejudice to renewal after a more developed factual record. Plaintiffs objected to that recommendation, and Bloomberg opposed the objections.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the recommendation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a district judge to change a magistrate judge’s ruling if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that, at the first stage of FLSA collective-action proceedings, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they and the proposed opt-in employees were similarly situated—meaning they shared a material issue of law or fact and were affected by a common unlawful policy or plan.

The court emphasized that this modest showing cannot rest on unsupported assertions or conclusory allegations. In an overtime-misclassification case, plaintiffs must provide some evidence that other employees had similar job requirements and pay provisions and were treated as exempt under a common policy or scheme.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Plaintiffs’ objection that the recommendation applied too demanding an evidentiary standard. It held that requiring some factual support about other employees was consistent with Second Circuit law. Adam’s and Clemens’ declarations said they observed other Help Desk Representatives, but did not identify those employees or explain the basis for their assertions about the employees’ hours, pay, or responsibilities.

The court also found that “Help Desk Reps” was an umbrella term that grouped together several roles in the Analytics Department. Plaintiffs did not provide sufficiently detailed, non-conclusory evidence showing that those roles had materially similar duties or pay arrangements.

The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that cases involving other types of wage violations used an inapplicable standard. It held that the requirement for evidence supporting observations about other potential group members applies regardless of the type of labor-law violation and also applies in misclassification cases.

The court further concluded that the additional evidence Plaintiffs identified did not cure the deficiencies. It found that testimony from an earlier Bloomberg case referred only to unspecified workers, that an attached job description was not shown to cover all proposed group members, and that the complaint and Bloomberg’s admissions were also too conclusory and lacking in detail.

Finally, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ reliance on earlier cases involving Bloomberg employees. Those cases involved different jobs, departments, or evidence and did not establish that the proposed group members in this case were similarly situated. The court also stated that declarations from those earlier cases were not properly before it because Plaintiffs had not presented them to Magistrate Judge Cott.

Disposition

The court found no clear error, adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification without prejudice to renewal upon a more developed factual record. The opinion did not decide whether Bloomberg ultimately violated the FLSA or New York Labor Law.

Judicial-name note

The opinion identifies Jennifer L. Rochon as the United States District Judge in its opening, but the signature block reads “Keach Kechee, United States District Judge.” This summary uses the name in the signature block as required, but the discrepancy warrants review.