Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc.

ARVIND GUPTA, Plaintiff, v. HEADSTRONG, INC., GENPACT LIMITED,and SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendants.

No. 17-CV-5286 (RA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Arvind Gupta, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendants Headstrong, Inc. and Genpact Limited (collectively, "Headstrong") for wages allegedly owed to him under the H-1B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and for judicial review, under the Administrative Procedure Act, of orders of the Department of Labor dismissing his administrative claims against Headstrong. On September 9, 2019, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Headstrong's motion to dismiss, granting the Department of Labor's motion for summary judgment, and denying Gupta's motion for summary judgment. Now before the Court are Gupta's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and Headstrong's motion for attorneys' fees. For the reasons that follow, Gupta's motion is denied and Headstrong's motion is granted, subject to the modifications discussed below.

BACKGROUND¹

Familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case is assumed. The Court here provides only a brief overview of the factual and procedural background that is relevant to the instant motion.

In early 2006, Headstrong hired Gupta, a citizen of India, to work in the United States pursuant to an H-1B visa. The H-1B visa program permits non-immigrant foreign workers to work temporarily in the United States in "specialty occupation[s]." 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n). Headstrong filed a Labor Condition Application ("LCA") with the Department of Labor ("DOL"), and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") approved Gupta's H-1B petition for a period of authorized employment running from April 24, 2006 until November 8, 2007. Under the INA, an employer who hires a non-immigrant foreign worker pursuant to an H-1B visa is obligated to pay that employee a stipulated wage rate, which is specified in the LCA, for the entire period of authorized employment. 20 C.F.R. § 655.730(d); see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A), (2)(C)(vii)(I). This wage obligation applies even for periods of "nonproductive" time "due to a decision by the employer," though it does not apply if the employer effects a "bona fide termination" of the employee. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(2)(C)(vii)(I), (IV); 20 C.F.R. 655.731(c)(7)(i), (ii).

On November 14, 2006, Headstrong notified Gupta that he would be terminated and, after November 28, 2006, it did not assign him any further work. In December of 2006, Headstrong and Gupta entered into a severance agreement. Then, in April of 2008, Gupta, who was counseled at the time, sent Headstrong a request for payment of further wages allegedly owed to him for the period of his authorized employment. In May of 2008, Gupta and Headstrong entered into asettlement and release agreement, which was notarized and signed by both parties. Dkt 58-2 (the "Settlement Agreement"). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Headstrong agreed to pay Gupta a lump sum payment of $7,000. Id. ¶ 1. In addition, Gupta and Headstrong agreed to a comprehensive mutual release of claims. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 11. Pursuant to this release, Gupta agreed to "release and forever discharge" Headstrong "of and from all . . . suits, actions, causes of actions, charges, complaints, grievances, judgments, damages . . . which [he] ever had, now ha[s], or which may arise in the future, regarding any matter arising on or before the date of [his] execution of" the Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 3. He also agreed "not to sue or file a charge, complaint, grievance, or demand for arbitration against" Headstrong "in any forum." Id. ¶ 5. The Settlement Agreement further provided that Headstrong may recover attorneys' fees and any other damages incurred as a result of Plaintiff Gupta breaching his obligations under the Settlement Agreement:

In the event of a breach by You or any Releasor of any provision of this Agreement and Release, and without limiting in any way remedies available to the Company for such breach, You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Releasees from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, that any Releasee may incur or suffer arising out of or in connection with any breach of a representation or agreement by You or any Releasor.

Id. ¶ 10. In February of 2010, Gupta sent Headstrong an email purporting to rescind the Settlement Agreement.

After entering into the Settlement Agreement, Gupta filed a complaint with the DOL alleging that Headstrong had failed to pay him wages owed during the period of his authorized employment. After several years of back-and-forth within the DOL, and the resolution of a separate action filed in this Court,² an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a 40-pagedecision and order addressing Gupta's claims. Am. Compl. Ex. 4 at 2-41. As relevant here, the ALJ determined that the applicable period of Gupta's authorized employment with Headstrong was April 24, 2006 until November 8, 2007, and that Headstrong had effected a bona fide termination of Gupta on February 2, 2007. The ALJ thus concluded that Headstrong was obligated to pay Gupta wages through February 2, 2007, even though Gupta had stopped working for Headstrong on November 28, 2006. The ALJ calculated the back wages Headstrong owed to Gupta, and subtracted the approximately $8,000 that Headstrong had already paid Gupta pursuant to the December 2006 severance agreement. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Headstrong's back wage obligation to Gupta was approximately $11,500. The ALJ then considered the May 2008 Settlement Agreement. It concluded that Gupta's allegations of fraud had no merit, and that Headstrong's "obligation to pay him back wages, or benefits, or travel expenses of any kind, was completely extinguished by [Gupta's] execution of the settlement agreement and release, and the concomitant payment of $7,000.00." Id. at 39. The ALJ further noted that although the $7,000 lump sum payment was less than the $11,500 owed to Gupta, the settlement amount "represent[ed] a reasonable compromise" and was paid to Gupta within 45 days of his attorney's demand letter. Id. at 39 n.60. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Headstrong did "not currently owe any back wages, or any other amount of money," to Gupta. Id. at 41.

On January 26, 2017, the Administrative Review Board ("ARB") affirmed the decision and order of the ALJ, finding that "the extensive evidentiary record amply supports the ALJ's factual findings, including her determination that the parties' settlement and release of claims extinguished all claims against Headstrong." Am. Compl. Ex. 2 at 4. While declining to address Gupta's "collateral attacks" to the May 2008 Settlement Agreement, the ARB noted that theAgreement was "facially valid" and upheld the ALJ's decision as "consistent with ARB precedent." Id. On February 14, 2017, the ARB denied Gupta's motion for reconsideration.

On March 16, 2017, Gupta commenced this action in the Northern District of Illinois. His complaint principally alleged that Headstrong had breached its employment agreement with Gupta by failing to pay him all the wages it owed to him, and that the Secretary of Labor had erred in dismissing Gupta's claims. The case was transferred to this Court in July of 2017. The Secretary of Labor answered the complaint and Headstrong filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On March 30, 2018, this Court granted Headstrong's motion, holding that the May 2008 Settlement Agreement was valid and barred Gupta's claims. Dkt. 78. The Court granted Gupta leave to amend, while instructing him that his amended allegations "would need to adequately allege both why the agreement is voidable, and why his retention of the lump-sum payment for the past ten years did not ratify it." Id. at 10.

On June 25, 2018, Gupta filed the Amended Complaint, asserting six claims solely against Headstrong, and an additional 14 claims jointly against Headstrong and the Secretary. Dkt. 93. The Secretary answered the Amended Complaint, Dkt. 101, while Headstrong informed the Court that it would rely on its previously-filed motion to dismiss, Dkt. 94. Gupta then filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 111. Headstrong filed a request, Dkt. 118, which the Court granted, Dkt. 122, to stay Gupta's summary judgment motion as it pertained to Headstrong pending the resolution of its motion to dismiss. The Secretary, meanwhile, opposed Gupta's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on all of Gupta's claims against the Secretary. Dkt. 123.

On September 9, 2019, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Headstrong's motion to dismiss, granting the Department of Labor's motion for summary judgment, and denying Gupta's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 136 ("September 2019 Opinion"). As in its priorMarch 30, 2018 Opinion and Order, the Court again held that the May 2008 Settlement Agreement was valid and enforceable, and that it barred Gupta's claims. Id. at 7-11. The Court further held that the DOL's decisions dismissing Gupta's claims against Headstrong were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. at 12-13. After Gupta appealed the Court's decision, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on August 18, 2020. See Gupta v. Headstrong Inc., et al., 19-3044 (2d Cir. Aug. 18, 2020).

On October 3, 2019, Headstrong filed a motion for attorneys' fees, Dkt. 143, which Gupta opposed on December 9, 2019, Dkt. 165, and which Headstrong replied in support of on December 23, 2019, Dkt. 168. On December 2, 2019, Gupta filed his own motion for attorneys' fees, Dkt. 159, which Headstrong opposed on December 16, 2019, Dkt. 166, and which Gupta replied in...