Bertrand v. Department of Education, Archdiocese of New York

Background

Troy D. Bertrand brought this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The amended complaint asserts eight claims involving alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, weekly payment requirements for manual workers, timely payment, wage statements, and hiring notices.

The complaint alleges that Bertrand worked for Our Lady of Angels Church as a maintenance worker, custodian, and porter from February 10, 2005, through September 16, 2022. It alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid straight-time or overtime compensation for all hours worked. It also alleges failures to make timely payments, provide required pay and payday notices, and provide accurate records of hours, pay rates, and compensation. A footnote states that Bertrand did not dispute that Our Lady of Angels directly employed him.

Motion to Stay Discovery

The defendants moved to stay, or pause, discovery while they prepared a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. They said the planned motion would argue that the amended complaint did not adequately plead claims against the defendants other than Our Lady of Angels; that nonprofit institutions were exempt from NYLL overtime requirements; that the minimum-wage claims were insufficient because the complaint alleged Bertrand was paid above minimum wage; that nonprofit institutions could pay employees twice monthly; and that Bertrand lacked standing to pursue the wage-statement and hiring-notice claims.

Bertrand disputed the defendants’ interpretation of the NYLL exemption for nonprofit institutions. He argued that the exemption applied only to minimum-wage provisions and not to overtime pay.

The court explained that a motion to dismiss ordinarily does not automatically pause discovery. A stay may be granted for good cause, considering the scope of discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the planned dismissal motion.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court did not need to resolve all of the parties’ arguments about the planned motion to dismiss. It held that the defendants had not identified a basis for dismissing Bertrand’s federal overtime claim. Therefore, even if the defendants prevailed on the planned motion in its entirety, discovery concerning Bertrand’s compensation would still have to proceed.

The court also found that the defendants had not shown that discovery would be unduly burdensome. Bertrand agreed to seek discovery during the pendency of the dismissal motion only from Our Lady of Angels, his direct employer. The court stated that documents such as his personnel file, pay stubs, payroll records, time records, and related email correspondence should impose little or no burden on that employer. The defendants had not shown that those materials would become irrelevant or that discovery would be narrower even if Our Lady of Angels prevailed on the state-law claims.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that Bertrand would not be prejudiced because he sought only monetary relief. The court was unwilling to assume that delay would be inconsequential merely because the requested relief was money.

The court denied the motion at Docket No. 29 and directed the Clerk of Court to close that docket entry. The denial was without prejudice to renewal: the non-Our Lady of Angels defendants may renew the request if they can show that the progress of the case, including depositions, would prejudice them even though they would not be required to respond to discovery during that period. The opinion concerns the request to pause discovery; it does not decide the planned motion to dismiss or the underlying wage claims.