Farmer v. Fzoad.com Enterprises Inc.

Background

Richard Farmer sued various defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law; the New York Labor Law; New York wage regulations; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and common-law theories. He sought unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Farmer alleged that he worked at Manhattan Eyeworks from August 15, 2014, through April 28, 2015, worked 72 hours per week, was paid $14 per hour, did not receive appropriate meal periods, and was later terminated after raising compensation concerns and reporting alleged sexual harassment involving a co-worker.

The Employer Defendants—Fzoad.com Enterprises Inc. and David Forest Gross—filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued, among other things, that Farmer had not exhausted administrative remedies, that some claims had no private right of action, and that some claims were untimely. The Matani Defendants—Mukund Matani, Gary Greenwald, Dental Associates of New York LLP, and Greenwald & Matani PTP—moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, principally arguing that none of them employed Farmer.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting both motions. No party objected. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it.

Rulings

Claims against the Matani Defendants

The court dismissed all of Farmer’s claims against the Matani Defendants. It held that Farmer had not plausibly alleged an employer-employee relationship with those defendants, which defeated his Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims against them. The court also stated that the same lack of employment relationship defeated his Title VII claims against those defendants. In addition, the court concluded that Farmer alleged no facts involving the Matani Defendants for his common-law claims.

Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation

The court dismissed Farmer’s Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claim against the Employer Defendants. Although Farmer alleged that he was fired after reporting Matani’s alleged conduct, the court found that he did not allege that the Employer Defendants terminated him because he engaged in activity protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New York Labor Law claims

The court dismissed Farmer’s New York Labor Law claims other than his overtime claim and his claim concerning failure to provide wage notices. It dismissed the spread-of-hours claim because Farmer alleged that he was paid $14 per hour while the applicable minimum wage was $8 per hour. It dismissed the wage-deduction claim because Farmer did not allege a specific instance of an improper deduction beyond withholding wages. It dismissed claims under regulations for food or beverage providers because Farmer did not allege that the defendants sold or served food or beverages. It also dismissed Farmer’s New York Labor Law retaliation claim because he did not allege that he engaged in activity protected by that law.

Federal employment-discrimination claims

The court dismissed Farmer’s federal employment-discrimination claims as time-barred. It stated that he was required to present those claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within either 180 or 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice, but he filed 302 days after the alleged occurrence. The court also discussed alternative reasons for dismissing the age-discrimination, gender-discrimination, sexual-harassment, general Title VII, and federal-retaliation claims.

Other claims

The court dismissed Farmer’s general retaliation claims because there is no common-law retaliation claim and because he had already asserted retaliation theories under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and Title VII. It dismissed his claim for termination without cause because he did not allege that he was not an at-will employee or that an agreement limited the term of his employment.

The court dismissed Farmer’s interference-with-prospective-employment claims as time-barred and for additional alternative reasons. It dismissed the defamation claim because Farmer did not allege that the statements attributed to Gross were false, and because the claim was filed more than one year after the alleged incidents. It dismissed the claim that defendants harassed and interfered with his employment and livelihood and created a hostile work environment because he alleged no supporting facts, and because a hostile-work-environment theory would duplicate his insufficient Title VII claim.

The court also dismissed the specified claims for which it found no available private right of action, including certain additional New York Labor Law claims and claims invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1746, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s report. The Employer Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The Matani Defendants’ motion to dismiss was also granted as to all counts. The court did not grant Farmer leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile. The order did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.