Worley v. City of New York

Background

RhaKeema Worley and other plaintiffs—3,879 current and former School Safety Agents employed in the New York City Police Department’s School Safety Division—sued the City of New York and the New York City Police Department under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This opinion addressed the plaintiffs’ motion for final certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

The plaintiffs asserted four claims. The Off the Clock Claim alleged that the defendants failed to pay for overtime work performed before shifts, during meal periods, and while traveling between school worksites. The Regular Rate Claim alleged that the defendants improperly calculated the regular rate used to determine overtime. The Prompt Payment Claim alleged that overtime was paid late. The Straight Time Claim alleged that overtime and compensatory time were paid at the regular rate instead of one and one-half times the regular rate.

The agents worked in three types of assignments: School-Based SSAs, who provided security at schools; Mobile Task Force SSAs, who provided security by vehicle within a borough; and Borough Command SSAs, who performed office work or other specialized assignments. The record showed that all agents were subject to the same general timekeeping and overtime policies, including use of the CityTime payroll system and payment only for overtime authorized by supervisors and entered into that system. The plaintiffs argued that these policies and practices commonly resulted in unpaid overtime work. The defendants disputed that the agents were similarly situated and maintained that the timekeeping and overtime policies were lawful.

Legal standard

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees may proceed together in a collective action if they are similarly situated regarding the alleged violations. At the final-certification stage, the court examines the fuller record to determine whether the employees who joined the case are sufficiently similar to the named plaintiffs. Courts consider the employees’ factual and employment settings, the defendants’ available defenses, and fairness and case-management concerns.

The court explained that employees need similar, not identical, positions. Individual differences do not necessarily defeat certification when the claims arise from a common policy or practice. The court also noted that a collective action may be divided into subgroups when appropriate.

Court’s analysis

The defendants did not contest certification of the Regular Rate, Prompt Payment, and Straight Time Claims in their opposition. The court therefore granted certification as to those claims.

For the Off the Clock Claim, the court found that the agents were subject to common timekeeping and overtime policies and that the plaintiffs had made a persuasive showing of a common practice involving unpaid pre-shift, meal-period, and travel-time overtime. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the existence of a timekeeping system defeated certification, noting differences between the CityTime system and the system discussed in a prior case.

The court found that School-Based and Mobile Task Force agents were similarly situated despite differences in their individual duties, work locations, supervisors, meal periods, and overtime experiences. Those differences mainly concerned how much unpaid work each agent performed, rather than whether the claims arose from a common policy. The court also found that collective treatment would reduce costs and efficiently resolve common issues.

The court reached a different conclusion about the factual and employment settings of Borough Command agents, which were more varied. Some performed administrative work, while others worked in field intelligence, community outreach, or crime prevention. Nevertheless, the court found them sufficiently similarly situated for the travel-time portion of the Off the Clock Claim. The defendants had conceded that they did not pay agents for travel between worksites, leaving damages as the principal individualized issue. The court found that damages differences did not defeat certification and that collective treatment would promote fairness and conserve resources.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion for final certification as to all surviving claims. The certified collective includes current and former School Safety Agents employed by the School Safety Division at some point since June 8, 2014, who consented to join the action. The collective was divided into three subgroups: School-Based agents for all aspects of the Off the Clock Claim; Mobile Task Force agents for all aspects of that claim; and Borough Command agents for the travel-time portion of that claim. The court did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated the Fair Labor Standards Act; it decided only that the specified claims could proceed as certified collective actions.