Julian v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HON. ALISON J. NATHAN

BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiffs Debra Julian, Stephanie McKinney, and Kimberly Harris worked for defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) as Long-Term Disability (LTD) Claim Specialists. They allege that MetLife misclassified them as "exempt" employees and consequently failed to pay them overtime compensation as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. In addition, Julian - the sole original plaintiff in this Court - asserts a related claim under New York Labor Law (NYLL) §§ 650 et seq. and its implementing regulations, while McKinney, who joined this case on March 2, 2017, after first filing an administrative claim, sues under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-58 et seq. Harris, who first joined this action as a named plaintiff on March 6, 2020, seeks damages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1 et seq.

Now before me for report and recommendation is defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 142) to dismiss and/or strike portions of the Connecticut and Illinois claims, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as time-barred. For the reasons that follow, the motion should be denied as to plaintiff McKinney, because the two-year statute of limitations applicable to her CMWA claim was tolled when she filed her administrative claim before the Connecticut Department of Labor (CT DOL). However, the motion should be granted as to plaintiff Harris, because the three-year statute of

2

limitations applicable to her IMWL claim was never tolled, and the claim does not "relate back" to the filing of Julian's original FLSA and NYLL claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1). Consequently, the portion of Harris's IMWL claim that arises out of overtime pay allegedly due for periods prior to March 7, 2017 - three years before she filed that claim in this Court - should be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts Alleged in the Third Amended Complaint

All of the named plaintiffs are former LTD Claim Specialists for MetLife, a New York corporation headquartered in New York City. Third Amended Class Action Complaint (TAC) (Dkt. No. 120) ¶¶ 14-16, 19. MetLife is a "major player in the long-term disability market," providing LTD coverage for clients including "a number of large companies throughout the United States." Id. ¶ 26.

Plaintiff Julian resides in New York and worked for MetLife in New York from August 2004 to April 2016. TAC ¶ 14. She sues under the FLSA and the NYLL. Id. ¶ 57. Plaintiff McKinney resides in South Carolina but worked for defendant in Connecticut from September 2013 to July 2016. Id. ¶ 15. She sues under the FLSA and the CMWA. Id. ¶ 67. Plaintiff Harris resides in Illinois and was employed by MetLife in Illinois from June 2010 to August 15, 2018. Id. ¶ 16. She sues under the FLSA and the IMWL. Id. ¶ 77.

As LTD Claim Specialists, plaintiffs gathered information from disability claimants, collected other relevant information, and then presented the documentation to supervisors or specialized staff, such as MetLife's nursing, vocational, or psychiatric staff, who gave opinions on whether the LTD Claim Specialist should "take action on a claim." TAC ¶ 27. According to the TAC, the LTD Claim Specialists "had little to no authority to make many claim decisions on their

3

own." Id. ¶ 28. Rather, their supervisors "were regularly responsible for deciding whether to take certain actions on a claim (such as rejecting or terminating the claim), and nursing, vocational, and psychiatric staff regularly rendered opinions that were necessary for claims decisions." Id.

In order to fulfill the basic requirements of the LTD Claim Specialist position, plaintiffs "regularly" worked between 45 and 60 hours per week. TAC ¶ 29. Specifically, "[p]laintiff Julian worked at least six hours of overtime per week." Id. ¶ 31. McKinney, the Connecticut plaintiff, "often worked at least 10 hours of overtime per week." Id. ¶ 30. Harris, the Illinois plaintiff, "also estimates that she worked at least ten hours of overtime each week. Id. ¶ 32.

Until November of 2013, MetLife classified its LTD Claim Specialists as "non-exempt," meaning that they received overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours in a week. TAC ¶¶ 5, 33-34. However, in or around November 2013, "as a cost-cutting measure," MetLife "reclassified" its LTD Claim Specialists as exempt from overtime pay as "administrative employees," see 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), "even though their job responsibilities did not change." TAC ¶¶ 6, 33. As a result of the reclassification, plaintiffs no longer received overtime compensation for working more than 40 hours in a given week. Id. ¶ 35.

B. Procedural History

On February 19, 2016, plaintiff McKinney filed a wage complaint against MetLife, under Connecticut law, with the CT DOL. TAC ¶ 36. The DOL investigated, but no resolution was reached. Id. Instead, McKinney "exercised her right to take her case to Court." TAC ¶ 37.

On February 7, 2017, plaintiff McKinney filed an action against MetLife in the District of Connecticut, seeking overtime pay and related relief under the FLSA and the CMWA. See Declaration of Michael D. Palmer (Palmer Decl.) (Dkt. No. 164) Ex. A, ¶¶ 1, 46-64.

4

On February 8, 2017, plaintiff Julian filed this action. In her Complaint (Compl.) (Dkt. No. 1), she alleged (as relevant here) an individual overtime claim under the FLSA, Compl. ¶¶ 71-75, and a similar class claim under the NYLL. Id. ¶¶ 83-87. The Complaint sought certification of a New York class (with Julian as its representative) but did not seek certification of an FLSA collective. See Id. at 19-20 (Prayer for Damages). The proposed New York class was defined to include all LTD Claim Specialists who worked for MetLife in New York "on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case." Compl. ¶ 29.^[1]

On March 2, 2017, plaintiff Julian, joined by plaintiff McKinney, filed an Amended Complaint in this Court (Am. Compl.) (Dkt. No. 6), alleging a collective claim under the FLSA, a class claim under the NYLL, and a new class claim under the CMWA. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-57, 58-67, 68-77. The proposed FLSA collective was defined as LTD Claim Specialists who worked for MetLife anywhere in the United States "between three years before the filing of the original Complaint and the date of final judgment." Id. ¶ 50.^[2] The proposed Connecticut class, to be represented by McKinney, was defined to include all LTD Claim Specialists who worked for MetLife in Connecticut "from February 19, 2014 through the date of final judgment." Id. ¶ 68.^[3]

On March 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. No. 17), which, like the prior pleading, alleged a collective claim under the FLSA and class claims under the NYLL and the CMWA. No Illinois law claims were alleged and no Illinois-based plaintiffs were identified in the pleading.

5

On March 22, 2018, the Hon. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge, granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Dkt. No. 65.) Thereafter, a Court-approved notice was sent to 470 LTD Claim Specialists across the country, and "more than 80" opted in, including 18 from Illinois. Palmer Decl. ¶ 14. One of the opt-ins was plaintiff Harris, whose consent-to-join form was dated February 26, 2019, and deemed filed March 6, 2019. (Dkt. No. 87 at 20.) The form stated that Harris consented to join the "collective action," seeking relief under the FLSA, and that she agreed to be bound by any adjudication or settlement of "the FLSA claims" in this action. (Id.)

On March 5, 2020, the parties submitted a stipulation permitting plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 118.) The next day, plaintiffs filed the TAC, which added Harris as a named plaintiff and added a class claim under the IMWL. TAC ¶¶ 1, 77-86, 110-16.^[4] The putative Illinois class alleged in the TAC is defined to include LTD Claim Specialists who worked for MetLife in Illinois "at any time from three years before the filing of the original Complaint," that is, on or after February 9, 2014, "through the date of final judgment." Id. ¶ 77.^[5]

On May 1, 2020, defendant filed the present motion, arguing that: (1) that the two-year statute of limitations under the CMWA bars the CMWA claims of the members of the putative Connecticut class to the extent their claims arose prior to March 3, 2015 (two years before any plaintiff filed a CMWA claim in this Court), see Def. Mem. (Dkt. No. 143) at 5-7; and (2) that the three-year statute of limitations under the IMWL bars the IMWL claims of the members of the putative Illinois class to the extent their claims arose prior to March 7, 2017 (three years before

6

any plaintiff filed an IMWL claim in this Court). See Def. Mem. at 8-23. Defendant also filed an answer (Dkt. No. 144), asserting as an affirmative defense that plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Pl. Opp.) (Dkt. No. 161) on May 29, 2020, along with the Palmer Declaration, and defendant filed a reply brief (Def. Reply Mem.) (Dkt. No. 179) on June 19, 2020.

Thereafter, substantial discovery was conducted and additional motions were filed. On October 19, 2020, defendant moved to decertify the FLSA collective. (Dkt. No. 228.) On October 23, 2020, defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff McKinney (as well as certain opt-in plaintiffs) was properly classified as exempt for...