Pierre v. City Of New York

Background

Burbran Pierre brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and, alternatively, New York City’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act. The defendants named in the opinion were TD Bank N.A., Duane Reade Inc., B&H Photo Video Pro Audio LLC, Bloomberg L.P., Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., the City of New York, and the New York Police Department. Trihop 14th Street LLC was also named but had not appeared.

The case concerns the NYPD’s Paid Detail Program. Through that program, the NYPD assigns officers to perform off-duty, uniformed security work at private businesses for hourly pay. The opinion describes the NYPD as controlling many parts of the program, including approval of participating businesses and officers, assignments, scheduling limits, uniforms, work rules, hourly rates, payment procedures, and records. Businesses participated through agreements with the NYPD and allegedly directed aspects of officers’ work at their locations.

Pierre alleged that defendants delayed payment for completed details and denied him minimum and earned wages. He also alleged that the business defendants failed to provide required pay-rate notices and accurate wage statements. The opinion states that Pierre worked approximately 63 details for defendants, while a complaint exhibit reflected approximately 84 details overall during the period described.

Motion to Dismiss

TD Bank and Duane Reade moved to dismiss all claims against them. The remaining Vendor Defendants moved to dismiss only the Freelance Isn’t Free Act claim. At this stage, the court was required to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences for Pierre, and decide only whether the complaint plausibly stated claims. It was not deciding what the evidence would ultimately prove.

Joint-Employer Claims

The court held that Pierre adequately pleaded that TD Bank and Duane Reade could be joint employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The court explained that both laws use substantially similar standards and that joint-employer status depends on the economic reality of the relationship, including actual functional control rather than isolated formal factors.

The court identified allegations that the Vendor Defendants could discipline officers or report them to the NYPD, make payments and issue tax forms, maintain paid-detail records, require officers to report to vendor representatives, require activity-log entries, direct officers to particular work locations, and control meal, break, and intervention policies. Although the allegations and program documents also suggested that the NYPD controlled important employment aspects, the court concluded that Pierre had alleged enough functional control by the Vendor Defendants to proceed. The court noted that Pierre might ultimately fail to prove that the defendants were joint employers, but his allegations were sufficient to allow discovery.

Freelance Isn’t Free Act Claim

The court did not reach the Freelance Isn’t Free Act claim at that stage. Pierre had pleaded it as an alternative claim, and the court understood that it could be sustained only if his Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims were dismissed. Because those wage claims survived, the court found it unnecessary to consider the alternative claim.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the Vendor Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge. The opinion did not determine whether the defendants ultimately violated the wage laws or whether Pierre would prevail on the claims.