Heredia v. Americare, Inc.

Background

Esthefany Heredia, Eslaini Fernandez, and Estela Taveras sued Americare, Inc., Martin Kleinman, and John Does #1-10. The plaintiffs were home healthcare aides who worked 24-hour live-in shifts, typically three or four days per week. Americare generally paid aides for 13 hours of a 24-hour shift, deducting eight hours for sleep and three one-hour meal breaks.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York Wage Parity Act, and common law. Their claims included alleged failures to pay minimum wages and overtime, violations involving wage notices and wage statements, breach of contract, breach of contracts as alleged third-party beneficiaries, and unjust enrichment. A previously conditionally certified collective action had settled, and the opt-in plaintiffs had been dismissed. The remaining case involved the three named plaintiffs, excluding the period covered by that settlement.

Americare and Kleinman moved for summary judgment on all claims. The plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on their unpaid-overtime claims.

Evidence Considered on Summary Judgment

The court held that the plaintiffs’ English-language declarations and affidavits were defective because they stated that the documents had been translated but did not establish that the plaintiffs understood what they signed. The plaintiffs did not provide Spanish-language versions with certified English translations, certified Spanish translations reviewed before signing, or other sufficient assurance of comprehension.

The court also refused to consider handwritten Spanish-language notes and other Spanish-language documents because they lacked certified translations. Separately, the court excluded late-produced notes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately explained their late production, that the materials had been produced after depositions and, in some instances, after the defendants filed their summary-judgment motion, and that using them would prejudice the defendants and require a substantial continuance.

The court stated that even if it had fully considered the excluded declarations, affidavits, and documents, the result on the merits would have been the same.

Minimum-Wage and Overtime Claims

The court explained that the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law generally require minimum-wage and overtime pay for covered work exceeding 40 hours per week. Overtime must be paid at one and one-half times the regular rate. For 24-hour home healthcare shifts, the court applied the rule allowing deductions for up to eight hours of sleep and three one-hour meal breaks when the required conditions are met and the parties have agreed to the arrangement.

The plaintiffs had signed agreements allowing Americare to deduct up to 11 hours from a 24-hour shift, subject to the sleep and meal-break requirements. They claimed that they often did not receive the required sleep or breaks. The court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants for several reasons.

For 2016 and 2017, the plaintiffs pointed to paystubs that appeared to show overtime paid at the regular rate. The defendants submitted evidence that later-issued paystubs paid every overtime hour reflected in those earlier paystubs. The court found no contrary evidence.

For August 19, 2019 through December 2019, Heredia was not employed by Americare and therefore had no evidence of unpaid wages during that period. The court also found that Fernandez and Taveras lacked admissible evidence because their notes and supporting affidavits were excluded. Even if the notes had been admissible, the defendants submitted undisputed evidence that Fernandez and Taveras received regular-rate pay for verified additional regular hours and overtime-rate pay for verified overtime hours reported through December 2019. The plaintiffs did not dispute receiving those payments.

For all other periods, the court found that the plaintiffs offered only vague statements that they worked “numerous” 24-hour shifts, “often” worked more than 13 hours, or “sometimes” missed breaks. The court held that these general statements did not provide enough detail about the length and frequency of unpaid work to allow a reasonable jury to find that the plaintiffs were not properly paid. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on the overtime claims and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Household-Services Claims

The plaintiffs also claimed that, before January 1, 2015, they performed more than 20 percent non-exempt general household work and therefore were entitled to overtime. The court explained that, during that period, certain companionship-service work was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement, but general household work unrelated to caring for the patient could not exceed 20 percent of weekly hours.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ statements that they spent at least 30 percent of their time performing “household work” did not identify how much of that work was non-exempt. Many tasks they described—such as preparing meals, making beds, doing laundry, cleaning areas for the patient’s health and safety, shopping, and assisting with personal care—were exempt work related to patient care. The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence showing that their non-exempt general household work exceeded 20 percent of their working time.

The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on this basis of the overtime claims.

Wage Parity Act Claims

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the New York Wage Parity Act minimum-compensation claims for 2014 and 2015. The plaintiffs relied mainly on the absence of defense proof showing that they received the required combination of wages and benefits. The court found that the record contained no evidence that they failed to receive the required total compensation and noted evidence showing that their base pay was $10 per hour, the amount required before benefits and other compensation were included.

Wage Notices and Wage Statements

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the wage-notice and wage-statement claims. The evidence showed that Heredia received a wage notice and signed an acknowledgment when hired, and that all three plaintiffs received later notices during reorientation and when their pay rates changed. Fernandez and Taveras had been hired before the relevant wage-notice requirement took effect.

The plaintiffs admitted receiving pay statements. Because the evidence showed that Americare provided both wage notices and wage statements, the court rejected these claims.

Contract and Unjust-Enrichment Claims

The court found that the plaintiffs abandoned their two breach-of-contract claims by failing to address them in their opposition brief. It also held that those claims, as well as the unjust-enrichment claim, could not survive because they depended on the unsuccessful minimum-wage and overtime claims. Summary judgment therefore was appropriate on these claims as well.

Claims Against Martin Kleinman

The plaintiffs asserted their claims against Kleinman individually. The court held that the claims failed on the merits against him for the same reasons they failed against Americare. It also held that the plaintiffs had not offered admissible evidence showing that Kleinman was their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The court applied the “economic reality” test, which examines whether an individual had operational control over employees. Relevant factors include the power to hire and fire, control over schedules and working conditions, determination of pay, and maintenance of employment records. The court found that Heredia’s statements about Kleinman were conclusory and unsupported by facts. His position as Americare’s CEO and owner was not enough by itself. The record instead showed that other Americare officers handled operations, termination, and pay negotiations. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Kleinman on all claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. It ordered judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case, with each party bearing its own costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all motions and close the case.