Murray v. City Of New York, New York

Background

This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case involved 483 current and former employees of the New York City Department of Homeless Services. The plaintiffs alleged that the City failed to pay required overtime for work performed before or after scheduled shifts and during meal breaks. They also alleged that the City failed to include nightshift differentials in overtime calculations, paid some overtime late, and provided compensatory time at a one-to-one rate instead of the required one-and-one-half rate.

The City used the CityTime system to record work hours. Employees could request overtime through that system, and supervisors reviewed the entries. The Department of Homeless Services required overtime to be approved in advance. The City maintained that it paid overtime even without preapproval, while plaintiffs contended that, in practice, they were paid only for preapproved overtime.

The court selected 38 plaintiffs for discovery and allowed each side to seek summary judgment—judgment without a trial when no material fact is genuinely disputed—as to seven plaintiffs. Seven plaintiffs moved for judgment in their favor, and the City moved for judgment as to seven different plaintiffs.

Unpaid overtime

The court held that the plaintiffs’ testimony provided some evidence that they performed unpaid work before or after shifts and during meal breaks. The evidence also could allow a factfinder to conclude that supervisors had actual or constructive knowledge of the work. Under the FLSA, an employer that knows or has reason to know that an employee is working must pay for that work, even if the employee did not properly request overtime.

The court denied the City’s motion on the unpaid-overtime claims because factual disputes remained about the work performed and the City’s knowledge. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion. Although they showed evidence that some unpaid overtime occurred, they did not provide sufficiently reliable evidence of each plaintiff’s total unpaid hours and resulting damages to obtain judgment in their favor. The damages expert’s calculations relied partly on an unexplained extrapolation, and the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient personal estimates, time records, or other evidence establishing the amounts claimed.

Gloria Brown

The court granted the City’s motion as to all claims asserted by Gloria Brown. The evidence showed that Brown was on paid terminal leave, worked zero hours and zero shifts during the relevant period, and did not identify evidence that she worked or suffered damages during that period.

Nightshift differential

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion concerning whether overtime pay properly included a nightshift differential. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the City failed to include the differential in overtime calculations.

The court granted the City’s motion as to the nightshift-differential claims of Ahmed, Bergholz, Clark, Flynn, Jackson, and McNeil. The plaintiffs did not identify evidence showing that these individuals were paid overtime without the required differential, and the expert’s small dollar calculations were unexplained.

Delayed overtime payments

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion concerning delayed overtime payments. The plaintiffs’ testimony was generally vague, and they did not provide records showing when overtime was requested, what communications followed, or when payment was made. The court also declined to adopt the plaintiffs’ proposed rule that any payment made more than 35 days after an overtime request was automatically unlawful.

The court denied the City’s motion as to Bergholz and Flynn because their testimony created factual disputes about whether overtime was paid as soon as reasonably practicable. The court granted the City’s motion as to Ahmed, Clark, Jackson, and McNeil on their delayed-payment claims.

Compensatory time

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion concerning compensatory time. The evidence did not show that any specific plaintiff received compensatory time at an improper rate. The court granted the City’s motion as to the compensatory-time claims of Ahmed, Bergholz, Clark, Flynn, Jackson, and McNeil because the record did not show that any of them received less than the required one-and-one-half hours of compensatory time for each overtime hour.

Liquidated damages and willfulness

The court denied both sides’ motions concerning liquidated damages. It found that the issue was premature because liability had not been resolved and factual disputes remained about whether the City acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing it complied with the FLSA.

The court also denied both sides’ motions concerning willfulness. A willful violation can extend the FLSA limitations period from two years to three years, but whether the City knew or recklessly disregarded that its conduct was unlawful was a factual issue for the factfinder.

Disposition

Judge P. Castel denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s summary judgment motion. It granted the City’s motion as to all of Brown’s claims; the specified nightshift-differential claims of Ahmed, Bergholz, Clark, Flynn, Jackson, and McNeil; the specified delayed-payment claims of Ahmed, Clark, Jackson, and McNeil; and the specified compensatory-time claims of Ahmed, Bergholz, Clark, Flynn, Jackson, and McNeil. The remainder of the City’s motion was denied. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the two motions.