DiGiovanni v. Ergoteles LLC

Background

Lisa DiGiovanni sued Ergoteles LLC, Ergoteles Partners GP LLC, Mark Mancini, Amit Manwani, and Michael Bos. She alleged that the defendants employed her as an administrative assistant from November 8, 2019, through April 13, 2022; required her to work as many as 65 hours per week; did not track her hours; and did not pay overtime for hours exceeding 40 per week. She also alleged violations of the New York Labor Law based on unpaid overtime and the failure to provide required wage notices and wage statements.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The defendants objected.

Considering the Earlier Related Proceeding

The court considered factual allegations from DiGiovanni’s earlier related proceeding. In that earlier complaint, she described performing work involving human resources, investor relations, immigration, and accounts payable. She also alleged that she performed the human-resources and accounts-payable duties for more than a year, later accepted those responsibilities on a more permanent basis, and continued performing them after her title and salary changed.

The court explained that courts generally may take judicial notice of a filing from another proceeding only to establish that the filing occurred, not to treat every statement in it as true. But the court found an exception applied because the earlier complaint was authentic, the defendants had given notice that they relied on it, and DiGiovanni had not disavowed its factual allegations. The court therefore took judicial notice of those allegations for purposes of deciding the motion.

FLSA Claim

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires time-and-a-half pay for work exceeding 40 hours in a workweek. The statute and regulations contain an exemption for highly compensated employees. The court described the exemption as requiring at least $107,432 in annual compensation, a primary duty involving office or non-manual work, and the customary and regular performance of at least one exempt administrative duty.

DiGiovanni conceded that the defendants could establish the compensation and non-manual-work requirements. She argued that they had not shown that she regularly performed qualifying administrative duties. The court disagreed after considering the earlier complaint. It concluded that work involving human resources and accounts payable qualified as exempt administrative work and that performing those duties for more than two years showed that they were more than isolated or occasional tasks.

The court held that the defendants had established on the face of the pleadings that DiGiovanni was covered by the highly compensated employee exemption. It granted the motion to dismiss the FLSA claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice, finding that amendment could not cure the exemption issue.

New York Labor Law Claims

The defendants argued that the court should not continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, after dismissing the federal claim. Because the defendants had not answered and discovery was stayed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York Labor Law claims.

Disposition

The court did not adopt the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the FLSA claim with prejudice, and dismissed the New York Labor Law claims without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.