Beh v. Cmty. Care Companions Inc.

Oretha Beh et al., Plaintiffs, v. Community Care Companions Inc. et al., Defendants.

19-CV-1417 (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 20, 2020

Report and Recommendation

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Oretha Beh, Ruby Cason, Briana Kincannon, and Kimberly Balkum are home care workers. Since 2013, plaintiffs have worked for Community Care Companions, Inc. ("CCC") or Interim Healthcare of Rochester, Inc. ("Interim"), two companies in the home care business. From their time with CCC or Interim, plaintiffs believe that the companies shortchanged them on compensable time spent maintaining clean uniforms, traveling to client homes, and performing other tasks that would have required overtime pay. Plaintiffs believe further that the companies have violated state labor laws governing contractual wages, wage notices, and split shifts, among other issues. Consequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint and then an amended complaint alleging various violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219; and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs hope to pursue a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Interim and its owner, James Watson, have not appeared in the case as of this writing. CCC; its owner, Alexander Caro ("Caro"); and its Chief Executive Officer, Mark Gatien ("Gatien"), have appeared and have filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 114.) The arguments for dismissal will be addressed in more detail below; in short, the CCC Defendants argue that maintenance of uniforms is not compensable; that plaintiffs cannot allege unpaid overtime hours without including non-compensable time for maintaining uniforms; and that plaintiffs have not pled enough operational control by Caro and Gatien to warrant individual liability. Without any FLSA claims, according to the CCC Defendants, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims.

District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. has referred this case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Dkt. No. 128.) The Court did not hold a formal oral argument, but at a status conference on April 8, 2020, the parties discussed the case briefly and agreed to submit the motion on papers. (Dkt. No. 138.) For the reasons below, the Court respectfully recommends denying the CCC Defendants' motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This case concerns allegations¹ that defendants hired plaintiffs for their home care businesses but fell short of full pay for all hours worked and full documentation of wages and deductions. Each named plaintiff had one of two health-related titles as defined under New York state law: Personal Care Assistant ("PCA") or Home Health Aide ("HHA"). Plaintiffs have provided a brief summary of the overlapping duties associated with each title:

Each Named Plaintiff, whether as an employee of CCC Defendants or of Interim Defendants, is providing and/or provided care to Defendants' clients at the clients' respective residences. Individuals designated as PCAs perform and/or performed duties including without limitation cleaning and bathing clients, doing their laundry and preparing clients' meals, among other duties. Duties performed by individuals designated as HHAs include ensuring clients take their medications properly and assisting them in the taking of their medications, helping clients get out of and into bed, assisting in preparation of clients' meals, helping them to eat, maintaining their hygiene, taking clients to medical or other appointments, and related tasks. PCAs and HHAs perform a mixture of the duties associated with theother title and, in practice, there is no meaningful distinction that is relevant here. Each PCA or HHA, including each Named Plaintiff, devotes more than 80% of his/her time with each client and in each workweek to the provision of care.

(Dkt. No. 111 at 7-8.) According to the amended complaint, the current operative pleading, some plaintiffs began working for Interim as early as January 2013; all of the plaintiffs became employees of CCC by October 2017, when CCC bought certain home care businesses from Interim.

The issues that plaintiffs have raised in the amended complaint concern how defendants managed two types of work: "on-the-clock" work and "off-the-clock" work. Plaintiffs describe their on-the-clock work as a little bit like traditionally understood shift work: On a regular basis, defendants assign plaintiffs to specific tasks that have to be performed at specific clients' homes, and plaintiffs have to perform those tasks within a specified frame of hours. (See id. at 8.) Defendants pay plaintiffs on an hourly basis for on-the-clock work, and that "hourly rate of pay constitutes and/or constituted the worker's regular rate of pay for purposes of the FLSA and the NYLL." (Id.) In contrast, plaintiffs describe their off-the-clock as follows:

"Off-the-clock" work performed by Named Plaintiffs, whether employed by CCC Defendants and/or by Interim Defendants, includes and included: (a) travel between the respective residences of CCC clients or of Interim clients whom a Named Plaintiff is or was assigned and scheduled to care for in a single workday; (b) time waiting at the residence of the second (or third) client in the same workday for the Named Plaintiffs scheduled shift at that residence to begin; (c) washing and drying scrubs that CCC Defendants or Interim Defendants require or required Named Plaintiffs to wear while caring for clients and to launder; (d) participation in mandatory training activities; and (e) provision of home care services to a client at his/her residence after completion of a scheduled shift caring for that client. Such "off-the-clock" activities are and were compensable under the FLSA and the NYLL, and the time expended on the performance of such activities is and was part of Named Plaintiffs' respective workweeks for purposes of the FLSA and the NYLL. CCC Defendants and Interim Defendants require and/or required home care workers to perform such work, and it is and was performed primarily for the benefit of the respective employers requiring its performance. CCC Defendants and Interim Defendants know and have reason to know and/or knew and had reason to know of the performance of such work for their benefit. However, neither CCC Defendants nor Interim Defendants compensate or compensated their respective home care workers for such work.

(Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiffs then offer examples of what they consider uncompensated off-the-clock work. Each named plaintiff describes having to travel between client residences for 17, 18, 43, or 77 of the work weeks that occurred since late 2017. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs mention performing home care duties for clients beyond what would have been considered work for a regularly scheduled shift. (Id. at 11.) One other example involved the time and expense that plaintiffs incur laundering and otherwise maintaining their scrub uniforms. (Id. at 12-13.)

To pursue their concerns about unpaid work, training, and expenses, plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on January 3, 2020. The amended complaint contains 10 claims under federal and state law; plaintiffs would pursue these claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and a class action under Rule 23. In the first two claims, plaintiffs accuse defendants of failure to pay overtime wages under federal and state law. In the third claim, plaintiffs accuse defendants of failure to pay a minimum wage under state law; the violation, in plaintiffs' view, comes from dividing their actual wages paid over the actual hours that they worked including off-the-clock work. In the fourth claim, plaintiffs accuse defendants of failure to pay agreed-upon rates for their work in violation of state law. In the fifth and sixth claims, made under state law, plaintiffs assert that defendants failed to give them required notices regarding rates of pay, allowances, regular payday designations, and other required information about compensation arrangements. In the seventh claim, plaintiffs allege a violation of state law requiring defendants to compensate plaintiffs for maintenance of their uniforms since scrub uniforms are required. In the eighth claim, plaintiffs accuse defendants of violations of state law pertaining to improper expenses relating to uniforms and improper deductions that cover the purchase of scrubs. In the ninth claim, plaintiffs allege a violation of state law requiring certain additional compensation when an employer spreads a workday beyond a spanof 10 hours. In the tenth cause of action, plaintiffs allege a violation of state law requiring certain additional compensation when the hours of the work shift are split.

The CCC Defendants filed the pending motion on January 13, 2020. The motion contains a number of arguments in favor of dismissal, and the Court will address each argument below in more detail. In short, the CCC Defendants argue that plaintiffs have bundled their allegations of off-the-clock work in such a way that they have failed to plead specific details about the length and frequency of any unpaid work. According to the CCC Defendants, time spent laundering or otherwise maintaining uniforms is not compensable. The CCC Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim about overtime wages because they have not identified "any given week when they actually worked more than 40 hours (in compensable time)." (Dkt. No. 115 at 16.) The CCC Defendants argue further that plaintiffs have made no plausible allegations against the individual defendants and have not adequately pled successor liability against CCC for any wrongdoing by Interim. Without any plausible federal claims under the FLSA, the CCC Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion in all respects. In...