Sanfo v. Avondale Care Group, LLC

Background

Halimata Sanfo sued Avondale Care Group, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York common law. Sanfo alleged that she worked as a live-in home health aide from June 2018 through June 2021. She worked 24-hour shifts, remained available to patients throughout those shifts, and was paid for only 13 hours of each shift. She alleged that she often could not take uninterrupted meal or sleep breaks, particularly while caring for two people living together.

Sanfo claimed that Avondale failed to pay minimum wages, overtime premiums, and spread-of-hours pay under the NYLL; failed to pay overtime under the FLSA; and provided paystubs that did not accurately report her hours. She also alleged that Avondale was unjustly enriched by billing Medicaid for services to two patients while paying only one home health aide.

Motion to Strike

Avondale asked the court to strike the entire amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material. Alternatively, Avondale sought to strike portions of the pleading and dismiss the remaining allegations for failure to state a claim.

The court denied the request to strike the amended complaint’s “Anticipated Objections” section. Although that section used a question-and-answer format and included allegations that could have appeared in the complaint’s factual background, the court found that the allegations were related to the case and had not been shown to be inadmissible, immaterial, or prejudicial.

The court granted the motion to strike specific references to another lawsuit involving Avondale. It struck Paragraphs 8 and 9 in full; a specified clause in Paragraph 11; the final sentence of Paragraph 30; the final three sentences of Paragraph 40; and a specified clause in Paragraph 45. Except for those paragraphs and portions, the court denied the motion to strike. Thus, the motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part.

FLSA Claim

The court denied Avondale’s motion to dismiss Sanfo’s FLSA overtime claim. An FLSA overtime claim must plausibly allege at least one workweek in which the employee worked more than 40 hours and was not paid for some of the excess hours.

Sanfo identified the week ending April 4, 2020, and alleged that she worked 168 hours, including 128 overtime hours, but was paid for only 51 overtime hours. The court treated that well-pleaded allegation as true at this stage and found that it met the applicable pleading standard. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA overtime claim.

NYLL Claims

The court also denied the motion to dismiss Sanfo’s NYLL claims. It held that the same basic standard applied to her NYLL overtime claim and found that the claim was adequately supported for the same reasons as her FLSA claim.

The court further found that Sanfo plausibly alleged that she worked 24 hours during each live-in shift because she was confined to the work location and expected to remain available to patients throughout the shift. The court concluded that her allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to support claims for unpaid minimum wages and spread-of-hours pay. Sanfo identified one week in which she allegedly was paid $13 per hour while working numerous 24-hour shifts without spread-of-hours payments, and one shift for which she was paid $195, allegedly resulting in an hourly rate of $8.12 compared with a $15 minimum wage.

The court also allowed Sanfo’s claim concerning legally deficient paystubs to proceed. Sanfo alleged that her paystubs did not accurately state her hours worked or include the applicable benefit portion of New York’s home health aide minimum rates. Avondale did not specifically address that claim, and neither party submitted paystubs or other documents that disproved the allegations.

Unjust-Enrichment Claim

The court granted Avondale’s motion to dismiss Sanfo’s unjust-enrichment claim. Under New York law, unjust enrichment generally requires a benefit to the defendant at the plaintiff’s expense and circumstances making restitution required by fairness. The court held that Sanfo had not adequately alleged that Avondale received something of value belonging to her.

The court also noted that an employment agreement could potentially govern the subject matter, which ordinarily would prevent a quasi-contract claim—a claim based on an obligation imposed by law rather than an express agreement. But even without deciding whether such an agreement existed, the court held that an employee who was paid a salary could not generally claim that the employer was unjustly enriched at the employee’s expense. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim.

Conclusion and Case Status

The court granted in part and denied in part Avondale’s motion to strike. It also granted in part and denied in part Avondale’s motion to dismiss: the FLSA and NYLL claims remained, while the unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed. The court directed Sanfo to file a second amended complaint complying with the opinion by September 7, 2022. The opinion did not state that the unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.