Carrasquillo v. Westech Security and Investigation Inc.

Background

Ana Carrasquillo sued her former employer, Westech Security and Investigation Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). She alleged that Westech did not pay her for all overtime work, paid her every two weeks instead of within seven days after each workweek, failed to provide required wage notices, and failed to provide proper wage statements. She also asserted claims on behalf of proposed FLSA collective plaintiffs and a proposed class.

Carrasquillo alleged that she worked for Westech as a security guard for about eight months, from approximately April 2022 through December 31, 2022. She alleged that she was scheduled to work 56 hours per week from April through September 2022 and 40 hours per week from September through the end of her employment, while also working additional time before and after scheduled shifts. She estimated that the additional work totaled six hours and 40 minutes per week during the later period. She also alleged that more than 25 percent of her duties involved physical tasks, including patrols, moving packages weighing more than 30 pounds, standing guard, and escorting visitors.

Westech moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Westech also moved to strike the class allegations under Rule 12(f). The court declined to consider Westech’s submitted punch records, wage statements, and wage notice because Carrasquillo disputed their authenticity or accuracy.

FLSA Overtime Claim

The court denied Westech’s motion to dismiss the FLSA overtime claim. It held that Carrasquillo alleged enough specific facts to plausibly show that she worked more than 40 hours in particular workweeks and was not paid the required overtime rate. The court found sufficient her allegations about the 56-hour scheduled workweeks, the additional work before and after shifts, and the estimated unpaid overtime.

The court also rejected Westech’s argument that Carrasquillo’s allegations about shift overlap and early arrival were contradictory. At the pleading stage, the court treated the well-pleaded facts as true and concluded that any questions about other employees related to the proposed collective or class claims, not to Carrasquillo’s individual overtime claim.

NYLL Frequency-of-Pay Claim

The court denied Westech’s motion to dismiss the NYLL claim alleging that Westech paid Carrasquillo biweekly rather than within seven days after the end of each workweek. The court agreed with the prevailing view among federal district courts in the Second Circuit that NYLL Sections 191 and 198 provide a private right of action for this type of late-payment claim, although the New York Court of Appeals had not resolved the issue.

The court also held that Carrasquillo plausibly alleged that she was a “manual worker.” Her allegations that more than 25 percent of her duties involved physical labor, together with her descriptions and time estimates for those duties, were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court left factual questions about her classification for a later stage.

NYLL Spread-of-Hours Claim

The court dismissed Carrasquillo’s NYLL spread-of-hours claim. That provision provides an additional hour of pay at the minimum-wage rate for an employee who works more than 10 hours in one day. The court followed the majority view in the Second Circuit that the provision applies only to employees paid the minimum wage. Because Carrasquillo alleged that Westech paid her more than the minimum wage throughout her employment, the court held that she failed to state this claim.

NYLL Wage-Notice and Wage-Statement Claims

The court dismissed Carrasquillo’s NYLL wage-notice and wage-statement claims on its own initiative for lack of Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury. The court held that Carrasquillo alleged no harm specifically caused by the missing or allegedly improper notices and statements. Her allegations that the recordkeeping violations helped Westech hide unpaid wages did not establish a separate concrete injury beyond the alleged wage violations themselves.

Class Allegations

The court denied Westech’s motion to strike the class allegations without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. Westech’s arguments—that individual questions predominated and that Carrasquillo had not identified enough other class members—concerned the requirements for class certification. The court held that deciding those issues would be premature before development of a more complete factual record.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted in part and denied in part Westech’s motion to dismiss. The FLSA overtime claim and NYLL frequency-of-pay claim survived. The NYLL spread-of-hours claim was dismissed, and the NYLL wage-notice and wage-statement claims were dismissed on standing grounds. Westech’s motion to strike the class allegations was denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.