Sanders v. Parker

1

MAYERLINE SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY PARKER and SUNY DOWNSTATE HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-5141 (PKC) (JRC)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 1, 2023

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Mayerline Sanders brings this action against Defendants SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University (“Defendant SUNY”) and Anthony Parker (“Defendant Parker”) for violations of the wage overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the overtime and vacation accrual provisions of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Plaintiff, who was an executive assistant at Defendant SUNY, seeks monetary relief for an alleged 1456 hours of overtime worked and 40 accrued vacation days, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. 7, at ECF 5 (“Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law for lack of subject matter and failure to state a claim[.]”).)

Because sovereign immunity bars suit against Defendants under the FLSA, the Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses the case.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York and worked as an executive assistant at the New York Congregational Nursing Center of SUNY Downstate Health Science University from approximately October 2015 to December 2021. (Compl., Dkt. 1 ¶ 7.) Defendant SUNY is a New York State public medical school located in Brooklyn and is a subdivision of the State University of New York network of public institutions. (Id. ¶ 9.) Defendant Parker is the Assistant Vice President of Human Resources at Defendant SUNY. (Id. ¶ 8.)

During the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant SUNY, she was also a SUNY student. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff states that on or about December 2021, her employment contract was not renewed, and Defendants “placed a picture of Plaintiff at the security desk and refused her entry to attend classes.” (Id. ¶ 16.) Upon inquiry by Plaintiff as to compensation overtime and accrued vacation time, Defendant Parker stated in an email to Plaintiff that it was Defendant Parker's “understanding that [Plaintiff] returned an inoperable laptop computer,” and as a result, “her [] payment [was] being held in abeyance until further notice.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff states that the laptop, which belonged to Defendant SUNY, was “returned . . . in perfect working condition[].” (Id.)

As a result of the nonrenewal of her employment contract Plaintiff asserts three causes of action. First, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207, by failing to pay Plaintiff one-and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 19-24.) Plaintiff seeks payment for 1456 hours of overtime. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 13, 19-24.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the Hospitality Industry Wage Order of New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 146-1.4, which similarly requires employers to pay employees overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-a-half times the employee's regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one work week.^[1] (Id. ¶¶ 25-31.) Third, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated NYLL Section 191 by failing to pay her for 40 accrued vacation days. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 32-36.)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 30, 2022. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff argues that jurisdiction is proper over her FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)^[2] and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over her NYLL claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on October 18, 2022, alleging that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FLSA claims because of sovereign immunity and that, regardless of jurisdiction, Plaintiff's NYLL claims fail to state a claim. (Dkt. 7, at ECF 2-5.^[3]) Specifically, Defendants assert that because Defendant SUNY is a state agency and Defendant Parker is a state agent acting in his official capacity, both Defendants are protected from this action under the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity. (Id. at ECF 2.) In addition to sovereign immunity protection, Defendants further argue that Plaintiff's claims under NYLL fail because: (1) Defendant SUNY is exempt from the NYLL based on the language of the statute, (2) the NYLL does not provide a private right of action for alleged underpayment or failure to pay wages (such as overtime and vacation pay), and (3) Defendant Parker is not subject to the NYLL because he was not Plaintiff's employer. (Id. at ECF 4-5.)

Plaintiff argues that her suit survives Defendants' claim of sovereign immunity under the Ex parte Young doctrine, which permits a plaintiff to “sue a state official acting in his official capacity-notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment-for ‘prospective injunctive relief' from violations of federal law.” In re Deposit Ins. Agency, 482 F.3d 612, 617 (2d. Cir. 2007) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974); Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2003)); see also State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 95 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting same). (Dkt. 8, at ECF 2.) Plaintiff articulates the relief she seeks as prospective: “[D]efendants['] refusal to pay [P]laintiff is ongoing and continues to be in violation of the [FLSA][.]”^[4] (Dkt. 8, at ECF 3.)

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Rule 12(b)(1)

“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). “The standard for reviewing a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is essentially identical to the 12(b)(6) standard,” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty, 916 F.Supp.2d 273, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), except that “[a] plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that it exists[,]” Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113. When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court takes as true the factual allegations in the Complaint but does not draw inferences favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction. See J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

I. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity and the Defendants^[5]

Defendants assert that Plaintiff's FLSA claims against them are barred by sovereign immunity and should therefore be dismissed. (Dkt. 7, at ECF 2.) The Court agrees.

“The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits in federal court by private individuals against non-consenting states[,]” and precludes “actions in which a state is actually named as a defendant, but also certain actions against state agents and instrumentalities, including actions for the recovery of money from the state.” Leitner v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 779 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890)); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). “As a general matter, states enjoy sovereign immunity from suit in federal court, even if the claim arises under federal law.” KM Enters., Inc. v. McDonald, 518 Fed.Appx. 12, 13 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing U.S. CONST. amend. XI; Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 727-28 (1999)).

Plaintiff names SUNY as a Defendant, along with Defendant Parker, a SUNY employee acting in his official capacity.^[6] Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly found that entities affiliated with SUNY are government agencies. See Eldars v. State Univ. of N.Y., No. 20-2693, 2021 WL 4699221, at *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2021) (quoting Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990) (“For Eleventh Amendment purposes, SUNY is an integral part of the government of the State of New York and when it is sued the State is the real party.”)); see also Garcia v. State Univ. of N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr., 280 F.3d 98, 115-16 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of claims against SUNY Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn as barred by sovereign immunity); Rives v. SUNY Downstate Coll. of Med., No. 20-CV-621 (RPK) (LB), 2022 WL 15497120, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022) (indicating that “SUNY Health Science[s] Center at Brooklyn appears to be simply another name for SUNY Downstate College of Medicine”) (citations omitted).

Therefore, Defendants-a SUNY entity and SUNY employee-qualify for sovereign immunity.

II. Sovereign Immunity and Plaintiff's FLSA Claims

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity is not absolute. There are two ways to bring the state into federal court: 1) the state may waive its immunity and consent to a lawsuit; and 2) Congress may explicitly eliminate by statute a state's sovereign immunity. See McCluskey v. N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., No. 10-CV-2144 (JFB) (ETB), 2010 WL 2558624, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010) (“Absent a state's consent to suit or an express statutory waiver, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court claims against states.”), aff'd, 442 Fed.Appx. 586 (2d Cir. 2011); Virginia Off. for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 254 (2011) (“[A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person's suit against a State.”).

A. Waiver, Abrogation

The Court finds neither of the two avenues for a state court case getting into federal court exist here. First, Defendants have not waived their sovereign immunity-quite the contrary. Defe...