Baldia v. RN Express Staffing Registry LLC

Background

Marie Alexandrine Baldia, also identified as Marie Alexandrine Nadela, brought a proposed class action against RN Express Staffing Registry LLC, Sally Nunez, and Alexander Alejandrino. She asserted claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and her employment agreement. She also sought a declaration that the agreement’s liquidated-damages provision was unenforceable.

The opinion treats the amended complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss. Baldia alleged that defendants recruited her from the Philippines to work in the United States as a registered nurse supervisor and promised to pay the prevailing wage for that position. The employment agreement described the position as nonexempt and required payment of the applicable prevailing wage and overtime. It also included a provision requiring Baldia to pay up to $33,320 if she left without completing the three-year employment term.

Baldia alleged that defendants instead paid her about $33 to $34 per hour, reduced the hours shown on her time sheets, and failed to pay her for all hours worked. She further alleged that, after she complained about her pay and time records, Nunez and Alejandrino threatened to enforce the $33,320 provision if she stopped working or sought other employment. She said that she continued working because she feared financial, psychological, and reputational harm and the cost of defending a legal action.

Court’s analysis

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. It does not resolve disputed facts. Applying that standard, the court ruled as follows:

Trafficking Victims Protection Act claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss Baldia’s forced-labor claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4), as well as her claim under § 1589(b). The court concluded that the alleged threat to enforce the $33,320 provision plausibly constituted serious financial harm and a threatened misuse of legal process. The court also found that the alleged circumstances supported an inference that defendants intended to pressure Baldia to continue working. The court denied the motion to dismiss the trafficking claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1590 because Baldia plausibly alleged both recruitment and forced labor. Because defendants did not address the claims, the court also denied the motion as to Baldia’s conspiracy and attempt claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a)-(b).

The court did not finally decide whether the liquidated-damages provision is enforceable. It held only that Baldia alleged enough facts at the motion-to-dismiss stage to support treating the provision as potentially unenforceable and as a source of serious harm under the trafficking statute.

Minimum-wage claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss Baldia’s minimum-wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although Baldia alleged that defendants reduced the hours recorded on her time sheets, she alleged that her effective hourly pay was about $33 to $34 per hour and did not identify a workweek in which her average hourly wage fell below the applicable federal or New York minimum wage.

Overtime claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss Baldia’s overtime claims under both laws. Baldia alleged that she worked 46 hours during one week but that defendants recorded only 34.52 hours and paid her for that lower number. The court concluded that this allegation plausibly showed unpaid overtime.

Breach-of-contract claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss Baldia’s breach-of-contract claim. The employment agreement required payment of the prevailing wage for the occupation at the assigned facility. Accepting Baldia’s allegation that she performed registered-nurse-supervisor duties while being paid the lower registered-nurse rate, the court found that she plausibly alleged that defendants failed to perform their contractual promise. The court also considered her allegation that defendants failed to pay for all hours worked.

Declaratory-judgment claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss Baldia’s request for a declaration concerning the enforceability of the $33,320 provision. The court concluded that defendants’ statement that they had no present intention to enforce the provision did not eliminate the alleged controversy because they had not definitively agreed not to enforce it in the future, and the complaint alleged prior threats to enforce it.

Disposition

The court’s September 30, 2022 order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Baldia’s minimum-wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, but otherwise denied defendants’ motion. The case therefore continued on the remaining claims. The court also scheduled a conference for October 13, 2022.

The opinion is signed by Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge.