Morales v. Performance Master, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) while the plaintiffs worked at a construction site between November 2018 and March 2020. They alleged that they worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay or required notice and records, and that they received less than the minimum wage.

The motion was filed by Joah Samuel, who worked for Five Horsemen as a construction manager. The complaint alleged that Samuel was present at the job site several times each week, directed the workers’ tasks, provided required tools, determined their hours and when they could stop working, distributed their wages, and had authority to make employment decisions. Samuel argued that the claims did not apply to him because he had not hired the workers and had no involvement with payroll or paying them.

Legal standard

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs. The complaint must contain enough factual matter to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible, but the court need not accept conclusory statements or bare recitations of legal elements.

The FLSA defines an employer broadly to include a person acting directly or indirectly in an employer’s interest regarding an employee. The court stated that the NYLL’s employer standard is nearly identical and that courts analyze the two statutes together. Under the economic-reality test, courts consider the total circumstances, including whether the alleged employer could hire or fire workers, supervised or controlled their work schedules or conditions, determined their pay rate or method of payment, and maintained employment records.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs alleged enough facts to plausibly show that Samuel was their employer under both statutes. Regarding hiring and firing, the complaint alleged that employment-related decisions at the job site were made by Samuel. Accepting that allegation as true, the court found that Samuel had the power to fire the workers, even if he had not hired them.

The court also found that the allegations supported Samuel’s direct supervision and control over work schedules and conditions. He allegedly visited the site several times a week, instructed workers about their tasks and tools, and told them when they could stop working. Although the complaint did not allege that Samuel set the workers’ wage rates, it alleged that he delivered and distributed their wages at the site, which supported involvement in the method of payment.

The complaint did not provide adequate factual support for its statement that Samuel maintained employment records. The court nevertheless stated that failure to satisfy that factor was not decisive because at least three factors were sufficiently alleged. The court further relied on the allegation, and Samuel’s concession in his motion, that he oversaw day-to-day job-site operations. It also found that his supervision of the project and distribution of wages plausibly occurred in the interest of Five Horsemen, the general contractor.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the claims against Joah Samuel. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail Samuel a copy of the order.