Campbell v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs are 494 current or former Officers and Sergeants in the New York City Department of Homeless Services. They sued the City of New York under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires overtime pay for covered work beyond 40 hours in a workweek.

The plaintiffs alleged four types of violations: unpaid work before and after scheduled shifts and during meal periods; incorrect overtime-rate calculations; incorrect compensatory-time calculations; and late overtime payments. In 2017, the court conditionally certified a collective action only for the first theory—the alleged failure to pay for off-the-clock work. After notice was sent, 484 additional plaintiffs opted into the case. Discovery later ended, and the City moved to decertify the collective.

Timekeeping and alleged unpaid work

The plaintiffs generally worked five scheduled 8.5-hour shifts each week. The City automatically deducted 30 minutes from each shift for an unpaid meal period, so employees were generally paid for 40 hours. Employees recorded their arrival and departure times in the City’s CityTime system, but the system generally paid only scheduled hours and approved overtime.

The plaintiffs presented testimony that Officers and Sergeants performed work before scheduled shifts, including obtaining equipment, receiving briefings, answering phones and emails, and preparing for work. They also testified that they worked after scheduled shifts because of emergencies or late-arriving replacements. In addition, they testified that they worked through meal periods because of arrests, fights, medical issues, patrol duties, administrative work, or instructions from Sergeants.

The plaintiffs contended that the City knew about this work because CityTime recorded their clock-in and clock-out times, but that they were not paid for most of it. The City disputed some alleged overtime policies, including whether overtime had to be preapproved and whether employees could request overtime only after accumulating a particular amount of time. The court stated that it did not need to resolve those factual disputes for the decertification motion.

Legal standard

An FLSA collective action allows employees with similar claims to join an overtime case by filing written consents. Courts in the Southern District of New York use a two-step process. At the first step, the court conditionally authorizes notice to potential members. At the second step, after discovery, the defendant may seek decertification by arguing that the opt-in plaintiffs are not similarly situated.

For the second step, courts commonly consider differences in the plaintiffs’ factual and employment circumstances, defenses that may apply separately to individual plaintiffs, and whether collective treatment would be fair and efficient. Plaintiffs must make a persuasive showing that they were common victims of a systematic policy or practice that allegedly violated the FLSA. If the court decertifies the collective, the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice and the named representative may continue individually.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs were similarly situated regarding the alleged off-the-clock violations. Testimony from more than a dozen employees supported the plaintiffs’ claim that Officers and Sergeants commonly performed work before and after shifts and during meal periods without compensation.

The City identified differences in supervisors, job responsibilities, posts, assignments, facilities, and personal preferences. The court found those differences insufficient because the plaintiffs’ theory focused on a common practice of requiring or permitting unpaid work, rather than on the separate conduct of each supervisor. The court also found that the differences between Officers and Sergeants did not defeat collective treatment because the alleged violation concerned unpaid work time, not the precise duties performed during that time.

The court rejected the City’s argument that the legality of the CityTime system defeated certification. The plaintiffs were not claiming that using CityTime was itself unlawful; they claimed that the City did not pay for work that CityTime recorded.

The court also determined that the City’s defenses could be handled collectively. If individual defenses later became important, the court stated that it could use procedures such as separating trial issues or preparing jury instructions to address them.

Finally, the court found collective treatment fair and efficient. Proceeding collectively could avoid duplicating evidence and legal arguments in nearly 500 separate cases and could resolve common questions about the City’s policies, CityTime records, and payment practices.

Disposition

The court denied the City’s motion to decertify the collective. The order addressed only the off-the-clock claim that had been conditionally certified. It did not determine whether the City was ultimately liable under the FLSA, and it directed the parties to report whether they intended to seek summary judgment and to provide information about settlement discussions.