Schiller-Egles v. The PromptCare Companies, Inc.

Background

Linda Schiller-Egles sued The PromptCare Companies, Inc., individually and for other similarly situated workers. She alleged that PromptCare failed to pay overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL). She alleged that respiratory therapists were required to work more than 40 hours, including while on-call, but were not paid for all work performed. She also alleged that PromptCare paid her every two weeks even though she claimed to be a “manual worker” entitled to weekly pay, and that the company provided inaccurate wage statements.

The court considered PromptCare’s motion to dismiss and Schiller-Egles’s motion for preliminary certification of an FLSA collective. Three additional individuals had opted into the FLSA action: Joanne Utzman, Krista Hicks, and Cesar Rosario. Utzman and Hicks submitted declarations in support of the certification request.

Motion to Dismiss

Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state FLSA claims. PromptCare argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over the defendant and particular claims—over FLSA claims arising from work performed outside New York. The court agreed that the FLSA does not authorize nationwide service of process and applied New York’s jurisdictional rules. It also held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California applies to FLSA collective actions.

The court concluded that Schiller-Egles’s claims arose from her employment in New York, and that Utzman’s claims also arose from work in New York. Hicks stated that she worked for PromptCare in both New Jersey and New York. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Hicks to the extent her claims arose from work in New Jersey. More generally, the court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs who did not work for PromptCare in New York during the period of the alleged FLSA violations.

NYLL Section 191 claim. PromptCare argued that NYLL Section 191 does not provide an express or implied private right of action for untimely wage payments. The court rejected that argument. It followed the reasoning of the New York Appellate Division’s First Department in Vega v. CM and Associates Construction Management, LLC, rather than the conflicting Second Department decision in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc. The court predicted that New York’s highest court would likely follow Vega and held that Section 191 provides a private right to sue for untimely payment of wages. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss this claim.

NYLL Section 195(3) standing. PromptCare argued that Schiller-Egles lacked standing to pursue her wage-statement claim because she had not alleged a concrete injury. The court held that she had adequately alleged standing. She claimed that inaccurate wage statements misinformed her about the hours she worked and the wages she was owed, allowed the alleged pay violations to continue, and related to her efforts to seek proper wages. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage and rejected PromptCare’s argument on standing.

Request for a stay. PromptCare asked the court to stay the case while the New York Court of Appeals considered the Section 191 issue addressed in Grant. The court stayed proceedings as to Schiller-Egles’s NYLL Section 191 claim, pending the Second Department’s ruling on the pending motion for reargument and for permission to appeal in Grant. The parties must submit a joint status letter no later than two weeks after that ruling, proposing next steps concerning the Section 191 claim.

FLSA Conditional Certification

The court granted Schiller-Egles’s motion for conditional certification. At this initial stage, an FLSA plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential opt-in workers were subject to a common policy or plan that allegedly violated the law. The court does not decide whether an actual violation occurred at this stage.

Schiller-Egles, Utzman, and Hicks stated that respiratory therapists employed by PromptCare were subject to the same wage policies and that those policies resulted in underpayment. The court held that these declarations met the low initial standard and showed that similarly situated workers may exist.

The certified collective consists of “all respiratory therapists and all other similarly situated employees” who worked on-call for PromptCare at any time from November 20, 2020, to the present. The parties must meet and confer about the form and distribution of notice and submit a joint notice proposal within 30 days of the opinion and order. If disagreements remain, counsel must submit a redlined proposed notice for the court’s review.

Equitable Tolling

Schiller-Egles asked the court to pause the limitations period for potential opt-in plaintiffs starting October 2, 2024, when she filed the certification motion. The court explained that such relief may be available when a plaintiff acted diligently and extraordinary circumstances made it unfair to allow the limitations period to continue running. It found that Schiller-Egles had made only a categorical request and had not shown the required diligence or extraordinary circumstances. The court denied the request for equitable tolling without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that PromptCare’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and that Schiller-Egles’s motion to certify was granted. The court stayed proceedings concerning the NYLL Section 191 claim and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two pending motions.