Harris v. Door Dash, Inc.

Background

Kevin Jerome Harris filed claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. He alleged that he worked as a “dasher” for Door Dash, Inc. from November 2020 through November 2021, completed 1,523 deliveries, and worked in 13 states. He alleged that he usually worked 45 to 50 hours per week and was never paid overtime.

Harris also alleged that he worked 70.5 hours during the week of August 30 through September 5, 2021, and 60 hours during the week of November 8 through 15, 2021. He alleged that he was paid $5.50 per hour on October 3, 2021, for work in Nebraska. The complaint also described alleged problems involving Door Dash’s “top dasher” status and vehicle damage, but the court’s discussion addressed the FLSA minimum-wage and overtime allegations.

Screening standard

Because Harris was proceeding without a lawyer and under the statute allowing qualifying litigants to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened his amended complaint before service. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a complaint at that stage if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The complaint also had to provide a short and plain statement giving Door Dash fair notice of the claims and their supporting grounds.

Court’s analysis

For the minimum-wage claim, the court required specific facts supporting an inference that Harris was paid less than the minimum wage during a particular week. The court held that his allegation that he was paid $5.50 per hour on October 3, 2021, was sufficient under the initial screening review.

For the overtime claim, the court required allegations that Harris worked more than 40 hours in a particular workweek without being paid for the hours above 40. Although Harris alleged the number of hours he worked and alleged that he was never paid overtime, he did not allege how much he was paid. The court therefore held that the overtime claim did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because the allegations did not provide enough information to make the claim plausible.

Disposition

The court stated that Harris’s overtime claim, as pleaded, did not comply with Rule 8. It allowed him to file a second amended complaint on or before April 19, 2022. The court instructed him to number the paragraphs, state each claim separately, identify the facts supporting each claim, and make the new complaint complete without relying on earlier pleadings. It warned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, or a court order could lead to dismissal. The order did not determine whether Door Dash ultimately violated the FLSA.