Malcolm v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that regulates wages and overtime. They alleged that the Department of Corrections, an agency of the City of New York, failed to pay overtime compensation or paid it late from approximately January 2018 through January 2021. The plaintiffs alleged that this conduct was willful, meaning that the employer knew, or recklessly disregarded whether, its conduct violated the law.

Omar Malcolm separately brought a claim that the Department of Corrections retaliated against him for complaining about unpaid or late-paid overtime. The opinion states that Malcolm made verbal and written complaints to timekeepers, the payroll department, supervisors, and the Department of Corrections Labor Relations Unit. He also sent a June 2, 2020 email expressly stating that the failure to pay his overtime violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The opinion states that Malcolm was suddenly transferred from the Anna M. Kross Center to the Robert N. Davoren Complex after making overtime complaints. He alleged that the transfer reduced the overtime he could work and subjected him to stricter procedures for proving his overtime than other employees. He also alleged that the Department of Corrections later restricted his overtime.

The City’s Motion

The City moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally recognized claim. The motion raised two grounds: that some overtime claims were filed too late and that Malcolm had not adequately pleaded retaliation.

Statute of Limitations

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally provides a two-year limitations period. A three-year period applies to a willful violation, but the court explained that a plaintiff must plead facts supporting a plausible inference of willfulness; merely alleging that the violation was willful is not enough.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ general allegations did not adequately plead willfulness. As a result, the two-year period applied. Because the original complaint was filed on November 17, 2020, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on conduct or occurrences before November 17, 2018 as time-barred.

Malcolm’s Retaliation Claim

The court held that Malcolm adequately pleaded a retaliation claim. It found that his complaints about unpaid or late-paid overtime qualified as protected activity. The court also found that the alleged transfer, reduction in authorized overtime, stricter overtime-verification procedures, and later overtime restriction could qualify as adverse employment actions—actions that could discourage a reasonable employee from making similar complaints.

The court further held that Malcolm sufficiently alleged a causal connection between his complaints and the employment actions. It relied on allegations that he was the only employee suddenly transferred, that other employees were not required to follow the same overtime-verification procedures, and that the overtime restriction followed his June 2020 email by approximately two months. The court noted that whether the evidence ultimately would support the claim was a question for a later stage, such as summary judgment or trial.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion for partial dismissal. It dismissed as time-barred the plaintiffs’ claims based on conduct or occurrences before November 17, 2018. It concluded that Omar Malcolm had stated a claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 25.