Worley v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs were 3,879 current and former School Safety Agents employed in the School Safety Division of the New York City Police Department. They sued the City of New York and the New York City Police Department under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, asking the court to decide some issues without a trial.

The agents worked in three roles: school-based agents, mobile-task-force agents, and Borough Command agents. They claimed they were not paid for work performed before scheduled shifts, work during unpaid meal periods, or travel to a second worksite for overtime shifts. They also claimed that the defendants improperly calculated their regular overtime rate, paid overtime late, and paid overtime and compensatory time at the straight-time rate rather than at one and one-half times the regular rate. The plaintiffs additionally sought a finding that the violations were willful, which could extend the recovery period from two years to three years, and that the defendants lacked the good faith that could limit liquidated damages.

Off-the-Clock Claims

The court held that the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that school-based and mobile-task-force agents performed some uncompensated pre-shift, meal-period, and travel-time work. The court also found that the plaintiffs established that the defendants knew, or should have known, about the uncompensated travel-time work. Evidence about supervisors’ awareness of pre-shift and meal-period work created factual disputes that required further proceedings.

Accordingly, summary judgment was denied to both sides on pre-shift and meal-period work by school-based and mobile-task-force agents. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on travel-time work by school-based and mobile-task-force agents. For Borough Command agents, summary judgment was granted to the defendants on pre-shift and meal-period work because the evidence did not show that supervisors knew about that work. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on Borough Command agents’ travel-time work because the plaintiffs’ evidence showed the work occurred with the defendants’ knowledge and the defendants offered no conflicting evidence.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the agents could not recover because they failed to report the time through the City’s overtime procedures. The court explained that an employer’s duty to keep accurate records cannot be transferred to employees, and an employer that knows or has reason to know about overtime cannot avoid paying it merely because the employee did not properly record or claim it.

Regular-Rate Claim

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on all three parts of their Regular Rate Claim. The court ruled that the defendants improperly calculated the regular rate by using assumed annual hours instead of actual hours worked in each workweek, failed to include meal allowances, and failed to include night-shift differentials. The court denied the defendants’ request to strike the plaintiffs’ expert declarations and accepted the expert evidence for purposes of the motions. The amount of damages remained to be determined.

Prompt-Payment Claim

The court denied summary judgment on the Prompt Payment Claim. The plaintiffs’ expert identified 19,137 instances in which unscheduled overtime was paid more than 35 days after it was worked, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that required reviews delayed payments. The defendants responded that overtime was paid within 35 days 97.9 percent of the time and argued that employee errors caused some delays. Because the evidence conflicted, the issue remained for further proceedings.

Straight-Time Claim

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Straight Time Claim. The plaintiffs’ evidence showed that the City paid for overtime and compensatory time at the straight-time rate rather than the required one-and-one-half rate. The evidence indicated an underpayment of $1,522 over three years, and the defendants did not offer contrary evidence on the payment calculation.

Willfulness, Good Faith, and Remaining Issues

The court denied summary judgment to both sides on whether the defendants’ conduct was willful and whether the defendants acted in good faith. The plaintiffs presented evidence of twelve prior wage-and-hour lawsuits, including at least one involving off-the-clock and overtime claims. The defendants presented evidence of measures they had taken to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. This conflicting evidence created a factual dispute.

The court’s conclusion stated that the defendants’ motion was granted as to the Borough Command agents’ pre-shift and meal-period claims and denied on all other claims. The plaintiffs’ motion was granted on travel-time work for all three groups, the Regular Rate Claim, and the Straight Time Claim. It was denied on pre-shift and meal-period work by school-based and mobile-task-force agents, the Prompt Payment Claim, and the defendants’ willfulness and good-faith defenses. Judge Lorna G. Schofield identified as remaining the claims and issues for which liability or damages had not been fully resolved, including damages, liquidated damages, and whether the three-year limitations period applies.