Sarr v. Sinergia, Inc.

Background

Sarr brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants announced that they intended to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Sarr’s claims were not covered because Sinergia, Inc. is a nonprofit organization and allegedly was not an enterprise engaged in commerce under the FLSA.

Sarr’s counsel argued that the anticipated motion was untimely and would cause unnecessary delay. Counsel also argued that Sinergia’s website described extensive residential services and that these services plausibly supported treating Sinergia as an FLSA-covered enterprise. The letter relied on the FLSA provision covering institutions primarily engaged in caring for certain people who reside on the institution’s premises. Sarr also argued that her individual work location would not matter if Sinergia qualified as a covered enterprise.

FLSA coverage

The opinion did not decide whether Sinergia is covered by the FLSA. It states that the final determination must await discovery, but that the material described in Sarr’s submission provided factual support making the coverage theory plausible. The opinion also states that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Sarr’s counsel therefore argued that the anticipated motion would be meritless and asked the court not to permit it to proceed in the proposed manner.

Order and case management

The order set November 4, 2022, as the deadline for any amended complaint. If Sarr filed one, Sinergia’s answer was due November 14, and any motion for judgment on the pleadings was due November 18. Sarr’s response to such a motion would be due December 7, and defendants’ reply would be due December 14.

The court stayed all deadlines concerning revision of the proposed notice and consent form for the collective action until November 18, 2022. The court stated that a further stay could be requested if defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion at docket entry 34. The court also stated that it would consider whether to separate discovery about jurisdiction from other fact discovery if that request were formally made.

Court’s comments

The court criticized what it viewed as gamesmanship by both sides. It referred to defendants’ timing in seeking to delay notice-related deadlines and also criticized Sarr’s late request to amend the complaint in response to the FLSA-coverage argument. The order did not resolve FLSA coverage or enter a judgment on Sarr’s claims.