Sydorowitz v. City of New York

Background

Lisa Sydorowitz sued the City of New York under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. She alleged that she worked more than 40 hours in some weeks but did not receive overtime pay at one-and-a-half times her regular rate. She specifically alleged that the City omitted earned differentials and other covered payments when calculating her regular rate.

Sydorowitz proposed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of certain non-exempt employees who were members of the AFSCME District Council 37 Professional Division and performed work for the City since November 4, 2017, subject to stated exceptions. A collective action allows similarly situated employees to pursue related claims together, but the court had not yet approved the proposed group.

The City’s motion

The City moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it failed to state a claim for overtime pay and failed to plausibly allege a collective action.

Overtime claim

The court explained that an overtime complaint must plausibly allege both more than 40 hours of work in a particular workweek and unpaid time beyond those 40 hours. Sydorowitz alleged that she often worked more than 40 hours and submitted a pay stub that, according to her allegations, reflected 43 hours and 15 minutes of work during one week.

She alleged that she was paid a regular rate of $43.90 per hour and an overtime rate of $58.78 per hour, but that the overtime rate should have been at least $65.85 per hour, or $69.77 per hour when the alleged differentials were included. The court found that these calculations reasonably supported an inference that she was not paid overtime at one-and-a-half times her regular rate.

The City relied on a collective bargaining agreement and argued that it showed Sydorowitz was paid regular wages for her first 40 hours and overtime only after the 40th hour. The court declined to treat that agreement as conclusive at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It also declined to take judicial notice of the agreement because disputed factual issues remained about its relevance and what compensation Sydorowitz received. Viewing the pay stub and allegations in the light most favorable to her, the court concluded that she stated a claim under Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Proposed collective action

The court also rejected the City’s request to dismiss the proposed collective action. Because Sydorowitz had not yet moved for approval of the collective action, the court found dismissal premature. Separately, the court concluded that the complaint supported an inference that other similarly situated employees may have been affected by the alleged policy of calculating overtime without including differential payments. The complaint also identified the proposed employees as non-exempt workers in the relevant union who worked for the City during the stated period.

Disposition

The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It directed the City to file an answer by April 11, 2022, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 27. The opinion resolved only whether the complaint adequately stated claims at the pleading stage; it did not decide whether the City ultimately violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or whether the proposed collective action would be approved.