Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd.

Background

Thirteen plaintiffs who worked as assistant floor managers, floor managers, or sales managers at Dover Street Market New York LLC alleged that defendants misclassified them as exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They also alleged that defendants failed to provide legally required wage notices at hiring and wage statements with each payment.

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss all wage-notice and wage-statement claims for lack of standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to allege a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct. Defendants also argued that the wage-notice claims of ten plaintiffs were filed too late and requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Standing

The report recommends denying defendants’ request to dismiss the wage-notice and wage-statement claims for lack of standing. Applying the Second Circuit’s decision in Guthrie, the report concluded that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a concrete injury: the missing pay information allegedly prevented them from recognizing and pursuing unpaid overtime, resulting in the loss of overtime wages. The report treated the alleged loss of the ability to investigate and advocate for correct pay as a sufficiently concrete injury at the pleading stage.

Timeliness

The report explains that a wage-notice claim under New York Labor Law § 195(1)(a) must be filed within six years of the employee’s hiring date because the required notice is due at hiring. Seven plaintiffs—Elizabeth Ammerman, Curtis Hennager, Blake Martin, Madison Murphy, Winston Tolliver, David Unich, and Dylan Warmack—were hired before June 3, 2015, but did not assert their claims until June 3, 2021. The report therefore recommends granting defendants’ motion as to those claims and recommends that they be dismissed with prejudice as untimely.

Daniel Abbott, Gabriel Herrera, and Fnan Ysahak alleged only that they were hired sometime in 2015. Because they could have been hired on or after June 3, 2015, the report recommends denying the timeliness challenge to their wage-notice claims at this stage. It notes that they would eventually need evidence showing that they were hired within the six-year period. Defendants did not challenge the timeliness of the wage-notice claims brought by Amir Azarcon, Sean Conway, and Carlin Rollenhagen, who were hired after June 3, 2015.

Attorneys’ Fees and Recommended Disposition

The report recommends denying defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs under Section 1927. It reasoned that because the motion should be granted only in part, plaintiffs’ wage-notice and wage-statement claims were not entirely without legal or factual support.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended that the motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: the standing dismissal request should be denied; the wage-notice claims of Ammerman, Hennager, Martin, Murphy, Tolliver, Unich, and Warmack should be granted dismissal with prejudice as untimely; the timeliness challenge to Abbott’s, Herrera’s, and Ysahak’s wage-notice claims should be denied; and the fee request should be denied. The report was addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni, and the parties were given fourteen days to file objections.