Overtime Complaint Was Sufficient by Alleging over 40 Hours Worked Each Week

​Takeaway: About 15 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed a higher pleading standard on federal court complaints that requires enough specificity to make the claims plausible. Courts have interpreted the standard generously under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow overtime claims to proceed without specifying the number of hours worked each week.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a federal district court decision finding that a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime claim did not provide the required level of detail to survive a motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs worked for Dover Street Market New York (DSMNY) in New York City as an assistant floor manager, floor manager and sales manager for a period during which they were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

During the times in which the plaintiffs held these titles, they were classified by DSMNY as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law, and paid on a salary basis. The plaintiffs claimed that, although these job titles contain the term manager, the plaintiffs' actual duties were nonmanagerial.

The plaintiffs regularly scheduled hours consisted of five shifts each week. Each plaintiff was assigned to either the opening shift, which was generally scheduled from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., or the closing shift, which was generally scheduled from 10:15 a.m. to 7 p.m. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged they were not completely relieved from duty during lunch breaks. They further alleged that they worked four or five hours in excess of 40 hours per week purely from their schedule for each week that they worked in one of these positions.

The plaintiffs alleged that they also frequently worked additional hours that were not part of the regular schedules. For the closing shift, they alleged that they did not finish their duties and leave the building until 8 p.m. or later. They claimed that they also had to engage in post-work duties, such as drafting and sending end-of-day reports and messaging clients, which required approximately five hours per week. They also claimed that they worked an additional three hours per week handling shipments of new merchandise, which arrived every Tuesday and Thursday.

The plaintiffs also alleged that a seasonal changeover of merchandise occurred twice in 2018, during which the plaintiffs who were then employed were also required to work two 13-hour shifts in a single week in addition to their base hours. Certain named plaintiffs alleged that they worked additional hours during specific weeks.

Court Action

In June 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit and moved to certify a class. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court eventually granted the motion, describing the complaint as long on generalities and short on specifics. The district court pointed to gaps in the factual allegations, such as a failure to allege how often or for how long the plaintiffs were required to work during lunch breaks.

In the district court's view, it was simply not plausible that every plaintiff worked at least 58 [CA1] hours every week they were an exempt employee. The court also found that the complaint was plagued by problems created by group pleading. It noted a lack of specificity in calculating the hours worked, including the plaintiff's failure to allege how often or for how long they were required to work during lunch breaks.

On appeal, the 2nd Circuit recognized that it has previously demanded that plaintiffs provide some degree of specificity in order to sufficiently plead an FLSA overtime claim. This requires that plaintiffs must specifically allege that they worked 40 hours in a given workweek, as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.

The 2nd Circuit found that the complaint satisfied this requirement by alleging that the plaintiffs worked five shifts each week, with each shift lasting between 8.75 or nine hours, amounting to between 43.75 hours and 45 hours of work per regular week. In addition, the complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were regularly required to work during lunch, which would result in them working overtime every week without compensation.

As a result, the 2nd Circuit found that the complaint was sufficient and reversed the judgment of the district court.

Abbott v. Comme des Garcons Ltd., 2nd Cir., No. 22-cv-1962 (Oct. 16, 2023).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.