Pappas v. City of New York

Background

The eleven plaintiffs are current or former New York City Transit Police lieutenants and sergeants who were assigned police dogs. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs had to train, exercise, feed, groom, transport, and care for their assigned dogs at home, including on days off and during vacations. The plaintiffs alleged that this work included about two hours per workday and about one and one-half hours on non-workdays, without proper compensation.

The Third Amended Complaint asserted two claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act: one for unpaid overtime wages and one for failure to pay minimum wages. The plaintiffs sought to proceed as a group on behalf of similarly situated current and former lieutenants and sergeants who had been assigned police dogs by the City.

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively to compel arbitration. It argued that the nine sergeant-plaintiffs were required to arbitrate under collective bargaining agreements, that all plaintiffs were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime protections as executives, that the claims of Lieutenant Brian Corrigan and Sergeant Lisa Velez were untimely, and that the complaint did not adequately plead overtime or minimum-wage violations.

Arbitration

The court treated the City’s arbitration request as a motion to compel arbitration. The relevant collective bargaining agreements contained grievance and arbitration procedures, including a provision concerning certain Fair Labor Standards Act claims involving off-duty or pre- and post-shift work.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provisions were invalid because the grievance process shortened the limitations period or because the union could prevent an employee from pursuing arbitration. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the union had actually blocked their claims, because they had not followed the grievance procedure or sought union representation in arbitration. The court also noted that the City represented that it would not enforce the shortened limitations period against the plaintiffs.

However, the court held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably waive the sergeants’ right to bring these Fair Labor Standards Act claims in federal court. The agreement limited arbitration to claims arising from specified provisions, and the City did not show that the plaintiffs’ police-dog-care claims involved interpreting or applying those provisions. The motion to compel arbitration was therefore denied.

Executive exemption

The City argued that the plaintiffs were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements because they were lieutenants and sergeants with supervisory responsibilities. The court explained that whether the exemption applies depends on the employees’ actual duties and pay structure, not merely their job titles.

The complaint described the plaintiffs’ dog-handler duties but did not describe their other responsibilities as lieutenants or sergeants. The court also declined to consider job descriptions from notices of examination because those documents were not properly considered on a motion to dismiss. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss based on the executive exemption.

Timeliness

The court held that Sergeant Velez’s claims were time-barred. The complaint alleged that Velez worked as a dog handler through May 28, 2020, and she was not named as a plaintiff until the original complaint was filed on July 13, 2023. Even assuming a willful violation that would allow the three-year limitations period, the court concluded that her claims were filed too late.

The court reached a different conclusion for Lieutenant Corrigan. Although Corrigan was added as a plaintiff in the amended complaint filed August 21, 2023, the court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that the City’s conduct was willful. The allegations that the City had previously paid a retired police lieutenant for handler duties and that other City departments paid dog handlers supported an inference that the City knew about its possible obligation to pay for the work. Corrigan’s claim was therefore timely at the pleading stage.

Sufficiency of the complaint

For public law-enforcement employees, the Fair Labor Standards Act allows overtime after 171 hours in a 28-day work period. The court held that a plausible overtime claim required factual allegations showing that the plaintiffs worked more than 171 hours during such a period and were not paid the required overtime rate.

The court found the complaint insufficient because it alleged only, “upon information and belief,” that the plaintiffs performed approximately two hours of unpaid dog-care work on workdays and approximately one and one-half hours on non-workdays. The complaint did not allege how many hours the plaintiffs worked during their regular police shifts or otherwise establish that they exceeded 171 hours in a 28-day period. The court also rejected the argument that the relevant information was solely in the City’s possession, because the plaintiffs themselves would know how many hours they worked at home.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court stated that claims dismissed for pleading deficiencies are ordinarily allowed to be amended. It concluded that amendment would be futile as to Velez’s time-barred claims, but that the other plaintiffs could potentially state a claim by providing more detailed allegations.

The court’s final disposition was as follows: the motion to compel the sergeant-plaintiffs to arbitrate was denied. The City’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim was granted without prejudice to amendment within 30 days, except that the City’s motion to dismiss Velez’s claims as time-barred was granted with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.