Suarez v. Murray

LAUREN SUAREZ and PEDRO MELO, Plaintiffs, v. CARTER MURRAY, CARMEN MURRAY, andFCB WORLDWIDE, INC, Defendants.

20 Civ. 3514 (JCM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 2, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

On October 23, 2020, Plaintiffs Lauren Suarez ("Suarez") and Pedro Melo ("Melo") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants Carter Murray, Carmen Murray (collectively, "Murrays") and FCB Worldwide, Inc. ("FCB") (collectively, "Defendants") pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, spread of hours, statutory damages, retaliation for bringing the instant suit, breach of contract and alternatively, breach of quasi-contract to recover unpaid wages. (Docket No. 39). On October 23, 2020, Defendant FCB filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against it ("Motion to Dismiss") pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Docket No. 40), accompanied by a memorandum of law ("Def. Br."), (Docket No. 41). Plaintiffs opposed the Motion to Dismiss on November 13, 2020 ("Pl. Opp."), (Docket No. 44), and FCB replied on November 20, 2020 ("Def. Reply"), (Docket No. 45). For the following reasons, FCB's Motion to Dismiss is granted in its entirety and Plaintiffs' claims against FCB are dismissed.¹

I. BACKGROUND

The Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the SAC for the purpose of resolving the instant motion. See Montgomery v. Holland, 408 F. Supp. 3d 353, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor") (citing Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007)).

A. Factual Allegations

FCB "is one of the worlds' largest global advertising" agencies, which employs over 8,000 people in 80 countries. (SAC ¶¶ 11-12). Carter Murray is FCB's Worldwide Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and works predominantly in FCB's New York City office. (See id. ¶¶ 7, 10). Carter Murray and his wife, Carmen Murray, own a second home located at 18-28 Old Post Road, Staatsburg, New York, 12580 ("Residence"). (Id. ¶ 19). The Residence includes a "10,000 square foot, eight-bedroom, five and one-half bathroom, three level single family home" ("Main House"), a "historical barn facility" ("Barn") and a 400 square foot studio apartment ("Apartment") above a free standing two car garage. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 58, 61). The Residence is referenced in FCB's marketing materials an as "offsite meeting space." (Id. ¶ 21) (internal quotations omitted).

In or around January 2018, Plaintiffs responded to a Craigslist advertisement posted by the Murrays seeking two live-in caretakers at the Residence. (Id. ¶ 22). The Murrays arranged a virtual interview between Plaintiffs and Carter Murray. (Id. ¶ 23). The following week, the Murrays invited Plaintiffs to the Residence for an in-person interview. (Id. ¶ 27). The Murrays paid for Plaintiffs' Metro North train fare from New York City to the Residence for the interview. (Id. ¶ 28). Approximately two days after the in-person interview, Carter Murray telephoned Plaintiffs and offered Suarez aposition as a full-time housekeeper and Melo a position as a private chef. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 62-63). Plaintiffs accepted the job offers. (See id. ¶ 30). Thereafter, in late January 2018, Carter Murray sent Plaintiffs a "Caretaker Agreement" ("Employment Agreement") memorializing the terms of their impending employment. (Id. ¶ 31).

The Employment Agreement provided, inter alia, that:

A. During the [Murrays]' occupancy of the residence and/or any invitees including but not limited to family members, friends, business associates. [sic] the [Plaintiffs] shall devote full-time care to the real property including, but not limited to all duties listed above. During such period of occupancy, the [Plaintiffs] shall not be entitled to any free days.

B. During the [Murrays] non-occupancy . . . the caretakers shall be entitled to time off subsequent to all work being performed at the real property.

(Id. ¶ 33). The Employment Agreement specified that Plaintiffs were to receive an annual gross salary of $21,000.00, would reside in the Apartment, and would be permitted use of a car ("Subaru") leased by Carter Murray when it was not being used by the Murrays. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 37-38). The Employment Agreement did not specify, nor were Plaintiffs otherwise given written notice of, inter alia, their underlying hourly rate or their overtime pay rate, whether they were "paid by the hour[,] shift, day[,] [or] week," whether tip, meal, or lodging allowances were claimed as part of the minimum wage, or their designated "regular pay day." (Id. ¶¶ 36, 47).

On February 1,2018, Plaintiffs commenced their employment and moved into the Apartment. (Id. ¶ 41). When the Residence was not occupied by the Murrays or their guests, Plaintiffs worked about three hours per day. (Id. ¶ 64). On these days, Suarez performed household chores and Melo completed "project specific tasks," e.g., cleaning carpets, and "[c]hef duties such as cataloging and shopping for stock items." (Id. ¶¶ 65-66). Both parties understood that Plaintiffs "were not free to leave the [Residence] for amajority of the time that [the Murrays] were absent," so as to run the Residence. (Id. ¶ 68). Additionally, Carter Murray informed Plaintiffs in approximately September 2018 that their use of the Subaru would be limited to work-related purposes. (Id. ¶ 57).

When the Murrays or their guests stayed at the Residence, Plaintiffs worked fifteen-hour days, from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 69-71). On these days, "Plaintiffs would routinely be kept busy at all times." (Id. ¶ 72). Specifically, Suarez catered to the needs of the Murrays and their guests and "maintain[ed] the cleanliness and functioning" of the Residence, while Melo prepared at least three meals a day and performed "light" household chores. (Id. ¶¶ 66, 70-72). On the days immediately preceding the Murrays' arrival and following their departure, Plaintiffs worked approximately six-hour days. (Id. ¶ 73).

Plaintiffs also provided hospitality services to the Murrays on two family vacations. (Id. ¶¶ 93-105). Specifically, Suarez "provid[ed] hospitality services to [the Murrays]" while they vacationed in Sag Harbor from August 22 to 26, 2018 on their yacht, the Olympus, and Melo provided "full hospitality services including cooking" to the Murrays while they vacationed in the Bahamas from February 8to 16, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 100-03). Additionally, on four occasions, the Murrays rented out the Residence (with the exception of the Apartment) to paying tenants. (Id. ¶ 84). When the Residence was rented out, Plaintiffs performed the same tasks for the renters as they did for the Murrays. (Id. ¶¶ 84, 86).

In addition, Plaintiffs allege to have worked at four "FCB hosted" events. (Id. ¶¶ 110, 119, 124, 133). First, on September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs worked a "FCB event" on the Olympus. (Id. ¶ 110). On this occasion, Melo cooked for Carter Murray and eight of his "business partners" while Suarez helped serve food and drinks. (Id. ¶¶ 111-18).Second, in "Spring 2019," Carter Murray held an FCB luncheon ("Luncheon") at the Residence attended by FCB Chief Creative Officer Susan Credle, a publicist and a writer. (Id. ¶¶ 119-20). Plaintiffs prepared the Main House, cooked, cleaned and "host[ed]" the Luncheon. (Id. ¶ 123). Third, in July 2019, FCB's annual staff appreciation party was held at the Residence, during which time Plaintiffs "attend[ed] . . . to the Main House," ensured "the bathrooms were clean," "continually provided [towels] to FCB employees," and ensured that "intoxicated FCB employees did not dirty or damage" the Residence. (Id. ¶¶ 124, 127-28). Suarez prepared the main guest suite for one particular FCB employee who stayed overnight at the Residence after the party. (See id. ¶ 125). Suarez "was to work for and take direction from this FCB employee during her stay." (Id. ¶ 126). Fourth, on or about February 11 to 12, 2020, Carter Murray hosted a two day FCB "workshop" event at the Residence.² (Id. ¶ 135). In anticipation of this event, Suarez tidied the Residence and helped clean the Barn where the workshop was held. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 135-39).

The Murrays did not keep accurate records of Plaintiffs' work hours or payment. (Id. ¶¶ 74-75). The Murrays' first payment to Plaintiffs was made only to Suarez "via Chase QuickPay." (Id. ¶ 49). Shortly thereafter, Carter Murray furnished Plaintiffs with the only pay stub Plaintiffs received throughout their employ. (Id. ¶ 51). With the exception of the first payment received by Suarez,³ the Murrays provided Plaintiffs with a flat weekly wage of $403.85 for the duration of their employment. (Id. ¶ 76). Plaintiffs also received the following monetary payments from the Murrays: (1) Melo received$500.00 on February 16, 2020; (2) Suarez received $400.00 on September 2, 2018; (3) Plaintiffs received $1,000.00 each on September 15, 2019; (4) Plaintiffs received $100.00 in September 2018; and (5) Plaintiffs received $250.00 each as a holiday bonus at the end of 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 79-80).

On March 12, 2020, in response to the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 ("COVID-19") pandemic in New York City, Carmen Murray informed Melo that the Murrays were coming to the Residence the following day to "stay for at least two weeks" and as long as the duration of the "shutdown due to the global pandemic." (Id. ¶ 181). The Murrays arrived at the Residence on March 13, 2020. (Id. ¶ 186). Shortly thereafter, Suarez fell ill and did not work on either March 17 or 18, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 190-91). The following day, March 19, 2020, the Murrays terminated Plaintiffs' employment and removed them from the payroll. (Id. ¶¶ 159-60). Plaintiffs vacated the Apartment on April 19, 2020. (Id. ¶ 163).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed...