Dervisevic v. Wolfgangs Steakhouse, Inc.

Background

Naser Dervisevic’s amended complaint asserted three groups of claims: wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York law; state discrimination claims based on ethnicity, religion, sex, and age; and retaliation claims under the FLSA and various state laws. The alleged discrimination occurred during incidents and ongoing workplace treatment between 2015 and 2018. The alleged retaliation occurred in 2019 after Dervisevic filed the lawsuit on January 28, 2019.

The court had federal-question jurisdiction over the federal claims. The amended complaint alleged only federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over state-law claims related closely enough to federal claims. The court had previously ordered Dervisevic to explain why his state discrimination claims should not be dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional analysis

A party asking a federal court to exercise jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. Supplemental jurisdiction covers state-law claims only when they are part of the same constitutional case or controversy as the federal claims. Claims generally satisfy that standard when they arise from a common set of operative facts.

The court held that Dervisevic’s FLSA wage-and-hour claims did not share a sufficient factual connection with his state discrimination claims. The wage claims concerned tip-credit notices, minimum-wage payments, off-the-clock work, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation. The discrimination claims instead required proof about adverse employment actions, discriminatory motivation, the defendants’ knowledge of Dervisevic’s protected characteristics, and treatment of him and similarly situated employees.

The court also held that the FLSA retaliation claim did not create supplemental jurisdiction over the state discrimination claims. The retaliation claim concerned alleged adverse actions after Dervisevic filed the lawsuit and required proof that the actions were motivated by that filing. The discrimination claims concerned earlier workplace conduct and different alleged motivations. The court found only minimal factual overlap and held that the employment relationship alone was insufficient. It further held that, even if the claims were related, the discrimination claims would predominate over the FLSA retaliation claim, providing an additional reason not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the ninth and tenth claims for relief—the state discrimination claims—without prejudice because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them. The court did not decide whether the alleged facts were sufficient to state the retaliation claims. It held that the FLSA retaliation claim provided supplemental jurisdiction for the state retaliation claims, but not for the state discrimination claims.

The court lifted the discovery stay and directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan by November 27, 2019, for discovery on the remaining federal and state wage-and-hour claims and the FLSA and state retaliation claims. Valerie Caproni, United States District Judge, signed the order.