Mendoza v. Cornell University

Background

Miluska Mendoza sued Cornell University, also identified as Weill Cornell Medical College, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). She alleged that Cornell did not pay her for extra time worked outside her regular shifts, time worked during lunch breaks, overtime, and “gap time.” She alleged that she worked as a housekeeper at Cornell’s hospital in Manhattan for approximately thirteen years, with her employment ending around April 2019.

Mendoza alleged that her standard schedule was five eight-hour shifts with one unpaid lunch break per shift. She claimed that she worked through lunch about 80% of the time, usually took lunch breaks of about 30 minutes, and worked an additional weekend shift in 20% to 40% of the weeks. She therefore alleged that she regularly worked 39 to 40 hours while being paid for 35 hours. She identified one specific week, the week of June 11, 2018, when she alleged that she worked approximately 48 hours but was paid for 43.

Motion and legal standard

Cornell moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. On such a motion, the court generally accepts factual allegations as true, but it does not have to accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions presented as facts.

For an FLSA overtime claim, the plaintiff must allege enough detail to support a reasonable inference that she worked more than 40 hours in a particular week and was not paid overtime for the hours above 40. The court stated that the same pleading requirements applied to Mendoza’s NYLL overtime claim.

FLSA claim

The court held that Mendoza had not adequately pleaded an FLSA overtime claim. Her allegation that she worked 39 to 40 hours in a standard week did not show that she worked more than 40 hours. Her allegation that she sometimes worked an extra weekend shift was too general to establish a plausible overtime claim.

The court also rejected her allegations about the week of June 11, 2018. Based on her other allegations, working six shifts would amount to approximately 42 hours, while she also alleged that she was paid for 43 hours. She did not explain how she calculated the allegation that she worked approximately 48 hours, and the court found that her allegations about lunch breaks and hours worked were inconsistent. The court also declined to consider additional factual details offered for the first time in her opposition brief rather than in the amended complaint.

The court therefore dismissed the FLSA claim. The conclusion states that this dismissal was with prejudice.

NYLL claims and jurisdiction

Mendoza also asserted NYLL claims for unpaid gap-time wages and failure to provide proper notice under New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act. The court had federal-question jurisdiction over the FLSA claim, but after dismissing that claim, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims in the same case, but the court may decline to do so after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the NYLL claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and stated that Mendoza could seek to reassert it in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.

Leave to amend and disposition

Mendoza requested another opportunity to amend her complaint in one sentence at the end of her opposition. The court denied that request. It noted that she did not identify additional facts or explain how another amended complaint would cure the pleading problems, and that the court had already told her that the amended complaint would be her last opportunity to amend in response to the arguments raised before the motion.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Cornell’s motion to dismiss. The FLSA claim was dismissed with prejudice; the NYLL claim was dismissed without prejudice for want of subject-matter jurisdiction; further leave to amend was denied; and the clerk was asked to close the motion and the case.