Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Metcalf v. TransPerfect, Judge Ramos denied leave for § 195(1) claims but granted it for § 195(3) claims.
Michele Metcalf, Hannah Lawson, and the proposed class members affected by the proposed New York Labor Law wage-notice and wage-statement claims; TransPerfect Translations International, Inc.
What happened
In Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson v. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., the plaintiffs sought permission to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint under New York wage law. They alleged that TransPerfect failed to provide accurate wage statements and did not pay proper overtime after their salaries fell below New York’s overtime-exemption threshold.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It denied permission to add claims under New York Labor Law § 195(1), which concerns wage notices given when employees are hired. It granted permission to replead claims under § 195(3), which concerns wage statements, because the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that inaccurate statements caused them concrete harm by preventing them from determining whether they were underpaid and whether TransPerfect’s later payments were sufficient.
Judge Ramos ruled that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged an injury for purposes of continuing their § 195(3) claims at the pleading stage. The order addressed permission to amend the complaint; it did not decide the ultimate amount of overtime wages owed or whether the plaintiffs would prevail on the claims.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 29, 2023
Background
Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson brought a proposed class action alleging that TransPerfect Translations International, Inc. violated the New York Labor Law. They alleged that they worked more than 40 hours per week at TransPerfect’s New York City office while earning less than $1,125 per week. After a change in New York law increased the salary required for overtime-exempt status to $1,125 per week, the plaintiffs alleged that they became eligible for overtime but were not paid for their overtime work.
The plaintiffs also alleged that TransPerfect failed to update their wage notices and failed to provide wage statements listing their regular and overtime rates and their regular and overtime hours. TransPerfect later made retroactive payments, but the plaintiffs alleged that those payments did not fully cover the overtime they had worked. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law § 195(3) wage-statement claims without prejudice because they had not adequately alleged an injury sufficient for federal standing.
Motion to Amend
The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) for permission to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint asserting claims under New York Labor Law §§ 195(1) and 195(3). A proposed amendment may be denied as futile if the proposed claim would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge recommended granting leave to replead the § 195(3) claims but denying leave to add the § 195(1) claims as futile.
TransPerfect objected only to the recommendation allowing the § 195(3) claims. It argued that the plaintiffs still had not alleged a concrete injury in fact, relying on Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions concerning the difference between a statutory violation and an actual injury.
New York Labor Law § 195(1)
The plaintiffs did not object to the recommendation denying leave to add § 195(1) claims. Judge Ramos reviewed that portion of the recommendation and found no error. He therefore adopted the recommendation and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to assert individual claims under § 195(1), which concerns wage notices provided when employees are hired.
New York Labor Law § 195(3)
The court rejected TransPerfect’s standing objection. The proposed complaint alleged that the plaintiffs actually received inaccurate wage statements over roughly nine months when they were eligible for overtime. According to the allegations, the statements did not show the hours worked or the regular and overtime rates, preventing the plaintiffs from determining whether they were underpaid, how much they were owed, and whether TransPerfect’s retroactive payments fully compensated them.
The court held that these allegations plausibly suggested a concrete monetary injury rather than merely a technical statutory violation or a risk of future harm. It also agreed that the question whether the plaintiffs had relied on the wage statements was premature at the pleading stage. The court therefore adopted the recommendation and granted leave to amend as to the § 195(3) claims.
Disposition
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker’s Report and Recommendation. It denied the motion to amend as to the § 195(1) claims and granted it as to the § 195(3) claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The opinion did not determine the final amount of overtime compensation owed or resolve the ultimate merits of the wage claims.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.