Delorenzo v. Coffey

Background

Jesse DeLorenzo sued Ania Coffey, Greg Coffey, Kirkoswald Asset Management LLC, and GC Management LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. He alleged that he worked as the Coffeys’ private chef from August 27, 2021, through May 27, 2022; usually worked 65 to 72.5 hours per week; worked 85 to 97.5 hours per week during certain trips; was paid for only 50 hours per week at $54 per hour; did not receive overtime pay for hours above 40; and did not receive required wage notices or accurate wage statements.

The Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Employer Status

The court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the Coffeys and Kirkoswald were not employers under the federal or state wage laws. The court held that DeLorenzo alleged enough facts to plausibly show that Kirkoswald handled his pay and employment records and that Ania and Greg Coffey controlled his schedule, work conditions, duties, travel, and continued employment.

Overtime Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss DeLorenzo’s federal and New York overtime claims. It found that his allegations about his regular 65-to-72.5-hour workweeks, and his 85-to-97.5-hour workweeks while traveling, provided enough detail to plausibly show that he worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving the required overtime rate.

Minimum-Wage Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss DeLorenzo’s federal and New York minimum-wage claims. Although he alleged that he was not paid for all of his hours, the court calculated that his alleged $2,700 weekly pay divided by his highest alleged weekly hours still exceeded both applicable minimum wages.

Spread-of-Hours Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss DeLorenzo’s New York spread-of-hours claim. New York’s rule generally provides an additional hour of minimum-wage pay for a covered employee whose shift exceeds 10 hours, but the court explained that the rule did not apply to employees earning substantially more than minimum wage unless they fell within an exception. The court held that DeLorenzo, a private chef serving one family in a private home, was not an employee of a covered restaurant or hotel under the cited regulation.

Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed DeLorenzo’s federal and New York retaliation claims for failure to state a claim. It found that his allegations that he refused weekend work and declined to travel because of his mother’s health did not show that he complained about unpaid overtime or another unlawful wage practice. The court also found that his general allegation that he had complained about unlawful pay practices was too conclusory.

The court allowed DeLorenzo to amend the retaliation claims if he could allege specific complaints about unpaid overtime, missing wage notices or statements, or another violation of the federal or state wage laws, and could allege that such a complaint led to his termination. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 14 days.

Wage Notice and Wage-Statement Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss DeLorenzo’s New York wage-notice and wage-statement claims for lack of standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury. The court held that DeLorenzo alleged more than a purely informational injury because the missing or inaccurate records allegedly prevented him from determining whether, and to what extent, he had been underpaid and affected the accounting needed for his overtime claim.

Recordkeeping Claims

The court dismissed DeLorenzo’s federal and New York recordkeeping claims. It held that the statutes and regulations cited by DeLorenzo did not give employees a private right of action to sue an employer directly for recordkeeping violations. The court denied permission to amend these claims because amendment could not create a private right of action where the statutes and regulations did not provide one.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken’s order states that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The surviving claims were the employer-status, overtime, and wage-notice and wage-statement claims. The court dismissed the minimum-wage, spread-of-hours, retaliation, and recordkeeping claims, while permitting amendment only as to the retaliation claims. Defendants were ordered to answer the surviving claims within 14 days after the order.