Sablowsky v. Auto-Chlor System, LLC

Background

Mark Sablowsky and the other plaintiffs sued Auto-Chlor System, LLC, and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that generally requires overtime pay for covered work beyond 40 hours in a workweek. The plaintiffs alleged that Sablowsky worked about 60 hours during the week of March 8, 2021, and that Sumner Johnson worked about 50 hours during the week of August 9, 2021, without receiving overtime pay.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants intentionally and regularly violated the law, and that Auto-Chlor System, LLC, and its subsidiaries were joint employers. Their allegations included that the entities shared management and executive offices, used the same human-resources personnel, operated under centralized control, promoted themselves as one common business, and controlled or directed the plaintiffs’ employment terms and compensation.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court assumed the complaint’s factual allegations were true, even if the defendants disputed them.

The court held that the plaintiffs had identified specific workweeks in which they allegedly worked more than 40 hours without overtime pay. They did not need to plead facts showing that they were nonexempt employees because the employer bears the burden of proving an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court also held that the allegations sufficiently supported a claim that the violations were willful. At the pleading stage, the plaintiffs did not need to allege willfulness with particular detail. The court further held that the allegations plausibly supported treating Auto-Chlor System, LLC, and the subsidiaries as joint employers.

The court overruled the defendants’ objection to allegations made “upon information and belief,” because those allegations concerned facts that were particularly within the defendants’ possession or control.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants were ordered to answer the complaint by August 9, 2023. The order resolved whether the complaint adequately stated claims at the pleading stage; it did not make a final determination that the alleged overtime violations occurred.