Parry-Birnstill v. Ashraf Medical Group, PLLC

Background

Lisa Parry-Birnstill sued Ashraf Medical Group, PLLC; Ashraf Medical Practice P.C., doing business as Renu Medispa and Pulse MD Dutchess, LLC; and Faisal Ashraf. She alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law based on the defendants’ alleged failure to pay overtime.

Parry-Birnstill alleged that she worked as a nurse practitioner from late 2017 until about November 17, 2023. She alleged that she was paid hourly and was not exempt from overtime. The complaint and documents incorporated into it showed that her employment agreement described her as salaried and provided for payment of $72 per hour on a biweekly basis for 72 hours, or 36 hours per week. Her rate later increased to $77 in 2019, $80 in 2020, and $85 in 2021 through 2023.

FLSA Overtime Claim

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the employment agreement and pay records because the complaint incorporated them by reference.

The court concluded that, based on the complaint as written, Parry-Birnstill qualified as an employee in a bona fide professional capacity who was paid on a salary basis above the applicable federal threshold. The court found that describing the salary using an hourly rate did not change her salaried status. It also found that the records showed fewer than the required circumstances for treating the salary exemption as invalid: her regular weekly compensation was below the predetermined amount on five occasions, totaling 17.01 hours over six years.

The court rejected Parry-Birnstill’s allegations that the defendants used the word “salary” inaccurately or to mislead her, the Department of Labor, or the payroll provider. The court characterized those allegations as conclusory and held that the complaint did not provide enough facts to show that she was not covered by the salary exemption. It therefore dismissed the FLSA claim without prejudice.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The FLSA claims were the only claims over which the court had original federal jurisdiction. After dismissing them, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in its discretion. The court dismissed Parry-Birnstill’s second, third, and fourth causes of action without prejudice to recommencing them in state court.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It granted Parry-Birnstill leave to file a second amended complaint by July 2, 2025. Any claims she wished to pursue had to be included in or attached to that new complaint, which would replace rather than supplement the first amended complaint. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 31, 2025, if a second amended complaint was filed. If Parry-Birnstill did not file one on time, the federal claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. Judge Nelson S. Román also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 11.