Miller v. Infinite Percent Partners LLC

Background

Lisa Miller sued Infinite Percent Partners LLC and other defendants over an alleged employment arrangement. She alleged that Defendants promised her full-time employment as IPP’s Chief Medical Officer, an annual salary of $200,000, medical benefits, and equity. She alleged that Defendants instead failed to pay her fully and on time.

In her First Amended Complaint, Miller asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay the federal minimum wage and retaliation. She also repeated state-law claims for violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, estoppel by conduct, nonpayment of wages, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Miller had not plausibly alleged an FLSA minimum-wage violation. The FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime requirements generally do not apply to employees working in bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacities. The court relied on Miller’s own allegations that she was hired for professional duties as Chief Medical Officer and would be paid a monthly salary rather than an hourly wage. The court also noted that she did not allege that she was a nonexempt employee.

The court rejected Miller’s argument that an exempt employee becomes entitled to FLSA protection merely because the employee allegedly received no minimum wage for three months. The court also noted an allegation that Miller received $5,000 on September 8, 2019, for work performed in August, while acknowledging that the complaint contained a contradictory allegation that she received nothing for August work.

The court separately held that Miller did not plausibly allege FLSA retaliation. To support an FLSA retaliation claim, an employee’s complaint must give the employer fair notice that the employee is asserting rights protected by the FLSA. Miller alleged that she complained about not being paid her promised salary, complained about compensation for work in June, July, and August, submitted invoices, and offered to enter into a consulting arrangement with a retainer. The court found these allegations too vague to notify Defendants that she was asserting federal minimum-wage rights, particularly because the complaints concerned compensation for professional work and included actions the court viewed as not normally associated with minimum-wage disputes.

The court concluded that further amendment would be futile because Miller had already received guidance about the defects in her FLSA claims and had been given an opportunity to amend. It therefore declined to allow another amendment.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Miller’s FLSA claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed Miller’s remaining state-law claims without prejudice. The court also denied as moot Miller’s motion for partial summary judgment concerning her employment status under California law. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge

The order was issued by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.