Adams v. Bloomberg L.P.

Background

Sheena Adams brought a proposed class and collective action against Bloomberg L.P. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Four individuals—Anthony Provenzale, Rodrick Telford, Keerti Hariharan, and Amber Adam—also opted into the case. Adams asserted five claims: unpaid overtime under the FLSA; unpaid overtime under the NYLL; unpaid wages under NYLL § 193; inaccurate wage statements under NYLL § 195(3); and failure to provide a required wage notice under NYLL § 195(1).

Bloomberg used a badge-based system to track time beginning in July 2016. The system rounded badge times to the nearest quarter-hour and did not count time away from the office unless the employee was away for more than twenty minutes. Employees used service-desk tickets to report out-of-office overtime. In February 2019, Bloomberg changed to a system called MYHR, under which employees were required to report and edit their own overtime.

A magistrate judge recommended granting Bloomberg summary judgment on all of Adams’s claims and denying Adams’s request to amend her complaint, while allowing the opt-in plaintiffs to renew an amendment request. Adams objected to the recommendations except as to her NYLL § 193 claim. Judge Abrams reviewed the objected-to portions independently and reviewed the unobjected-to portion for clear error.

Ruling on Overtime Claims

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court held that Adams did not meet her burden of presenting evidence from which a jury could reasonably find unpaid overtime.

For the badge period, the court held that Bloomberg’s rounding policy was neutral on its face because it rounded times both up and down. The twenty-minute rule did not show that the policy systematically favored Bloomberg. The court also held that the policy was neutral in practice. Adams claimed a net loss of 2.55 hours over the relevant period, but the court concluded that this small amount did not create a triable dispute about whether the policy systematically underpaid employees. A limited sample of overtime weeks involving several individuals also did not establish that the sample represented the larger group of employees.

The court separately rejected Adams’s claim concerning out-of-office work during the badge period. Adams had unequivocally testified that she always submitted service-desk tickets for her out-of-office work. Evidence that other employees may have failed to report their work did not establish that Adams herself was owed overtime.

For the MYHR period, Adams testified that she had performed overtime that she did not report or for which she was not paid, but she could not identify when the work occurred, what tasks she performed, how often it occurred, or how much time was involved. The court held that even assuming Bloomberg’s records were inaccurate or incomplete, Adams still had to provide enough evidence to support a reasonable estimate of the amount and extent of unpaid work. Her evidence concerning one week of badge data and system timestamps did not show how much time she was actually working under federal wage law. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Bloomberg on the overtime claims for both periods under the FLSA and the NYLL.

Other Claims

The court dismissed Adams’s NYLL § 193 claim because she alleged only that Bloomberg failed to pay overtime, not that Bloomberg made a specific improper deduction from her wages.

The court dismissed Adams’s NYLL § 195(3) wage-statement claim because NYLL § 198(1-d) provides an affirmative defense when an employer made complete and timely payment of all wages due. The court found no genuine dispute that Bloomberg had made complete and timely payment.

The court did not decide whether Adams’s NYLL § 195(1) wage-notice claim was timely. Instead, it held that NYLL § 198(1-b) supplied a parallel affirmative defense because Bloomberg had made complete and timely payment of all wages due. The court therefore dismissed that claim as well.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Judge Abrams agreed with the magistrate judge that Adams’s request to file a Third Amended Complaint should be denied because summary judgment would dispose of the case in its current posture. The denial was without prejudice to renewal by the opt-in plaintiffs, whose claims might have merit independently of Adams’s claims.

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations in full, granted Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Adams’s motion for leave to amend without prejudice to renewal by the opt-in plaintiffs. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions.