Barkley v. NYU Langone MSO, Inc.

Background

Clinton Barkley, Rashaan Bowrey, Andrew Hancock, and Philip Ramirez sued NYU Langone MSO, Inc., NYU Langone Health System, and NYU Langone Hospitals on behalf of themselves and other workers. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wage and overtime, and the New York Labor Law.

The plaintiffs were former NYU Langone employees who worked in information-technology and technological-support positions. They alleged that these workers provided on-site and remote technical support, handled information-technology tickets, troubleshot hardware and software, tested software, and installed equipment and software. They further alleged that they and other information-technology support employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, were classified as exempt from overtime protections, did not have their working time recorded, and were not paid overtime.

Legal standard

Under the FLSA, employees may join a collective action only by giving written consent. At the first stage of the collective-action process, a court may conditionally certify a collective if the plaintiffs make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were subject to a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. After discovery, the court may conduct the second-stage review and decide whether the participating employees are actually similarly situated; it may then decertify the collective if they are not.

Conditional certification

The court found that the plaintiffs met the modest factual-showing requirement. Their complaint and declarations alleged that information-technology support employees in NYU Langone’s Medical Center Information Technology division shared primary duties, interacted with one another, discussed their schedules and responsibilities, and were subject to a common practice of being classified as exempt and denied overtime pay. The plaintiffs identified approximately 17 other information-technology support employees who allegedly worked without overtime compensation.

The court rejected NYU Langone’s arguments that the proposed collective was too broad because the organization had many technology workers with different responsibilities, pay, and job titles. The court held that the relevant question at this stage was whether workers were subject to similar wage-and-hour practices, not whether every worker had the same job description. It also rejected the argument that the collective might include managers or executives who were properly exempt, explaining that questions about job similarity and the merits of individual overtime claims could be addressed during the second stage.

The court also rejected NYU Langone’s argument that discovery had to occur before conditional certification. The court stated that the applicable two-step process permits certification first, followed by discovery and a possible later motion to decertify.

The court therefore granted the motion and conditionally certified a collective consisting of all persons who work or worked for NYU Langone as exempt-classified information-technology support employees—defined as Analysts, Techs, Specialists, and employees with similar job titles within the Medical Center Information Technology division who provide technological support to NYU Langone operations—at any time since December 18, 2021, and who elect to opt into the action.

Notice requirements

The court tentatively approved the plaintiffs’ proposed mail, email, text-message, standalone-website, and reminder notices, subject to modifications. The notices must identify the covered employees and state that they were classified as exempt from overtime and were not paid time-and-a-half for hours over 40 in one or more weeks. The plaintiffs may use “I.T. Support Employees” as a collective label but must remove additional job titles beyond the example titles in the collective definition.

The notices must also include NYU Langone’s counsel’s name and address and explain that people who join may be required to provide information to NYU Langone’s lawyers or the court in writing or in person. The opt-in period was limited to 60 days. The court allowed a three-year limitations period for notice purposes because the plaintiffs alleged willful FLSA violations.

The court approved reminder notices and rejected NYU Langone’s proposed language stating that the court did not encourage or discourage participation. It also rejected NYU Langone’s objection to sharing collective members’ contact information with plaintiffs’ counsel.

Orders and deadlines

The plaintiffs were ordered to file revised notices and reminder notices by May 27, 2025, and NYU Langone was allowed to file objections by June 3, 2025. By June 9, 2025, NYU Langone had to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with collective members’ names, last known addresses, personal email addresses, personal telephone numbers, and employee numbers in a usable electronic format.

After final approval of the notices, the plaintiffs were authorized to send them by mail, email, text message, and standalone website, and to send approved reminders by mail, email, and text message to members who had not responded within 30 days. Collective members could join by filing the approved consent form within 60 days after the notice was mailed, or within 60 days after a re-mailing. NYU Langone also had to provide partial Social Security numbers for members whose notices were returned as undeliverable.

Disposition

Judge Torres granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA collective-action certification. The order addressed whether notice could be sent at the initial certification stage; it did not finally resolve the employees’ overtime claims or determine whether all opt-in employees would remain in the collective after discovery.