Thompson v. Glob. Contact Servs.

STEPHANIE THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CONTACT SERVICES, LLC, EUGENE OHEMENG, FRANK CAMP, ANTOINETTE CURRIE, and JAMIE HOFFMAN, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-651 (MKB)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Stephanie Thompson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, commenced the above-captioned action against Defendants Global Contact Services, LLC (“GCS”) Eugene Ohemeng, Frank Camp, Antoinette Currie, and Jamie Hoffman^[1] on February 5, 2020, asserting claims for recovery of unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) against GCS and Individual Defendants, and claims for discrimination in violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (the “NYSHRL”), and New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (the “NYCHRL”) against all Defendants. (Compl Docket Entry No. 1.)^[2] Plaintiff also asserted claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ohemeng.^[3] (Id. ¶¶ 123-135.)

On November 12, 2020, GCS and Individual Defendants collectively moved for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiff's NYLL claim. (Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (“Defs.' Mot.”), Docket Entry No 32; Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. (“Defs.' Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 33.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's NYLL claim is barred by the final judgment and order entered in connection with a prior class action settlement. (Defs.' Mem.) Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motion. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), Docket Entry No. 35.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion.

I. Background

The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Complaint for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order.

a. Plaintiff's employment

GCS owns and operates a call center that “contracts with Access-A-Ride . . . a program [that] provides transportation services to individuals with disabilities or health problems” who cannot use public transportation. (Compl. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff was employed as a call center representative at GCS from January 7, 2019, until September of 2019, (id. ¶ 24), and was regularly required to work “in excess of [ten] hours per day and [forty] hours per week” without being paid regular, overtime, and spread-of-hours pay, (id. ¶¶ 79, 86).^[4] Plaintiff usually worked eleven hours per day, four days a week. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff was typically required to work Friday through Monday from approximately 6:55 AM until 6:00 PM. (Id.)

b. GCS's timekeeping and payroll policies

Plaintiff contends that GCS's “timekeeping and payroll policies” resulted in a reduction of her paid hours. (Id. ¶ 27.) “GCS uses two separate systems to track employees' hours” - an “ADP” system and a system that tracks employees' time through their phones.^[5] (Id. ¶ 28.) Any mismatch in time between the two systems is “resolved against workers.” (Id.) To log her hours each day on ADP, Plaintiff would “have to log in to both of these systems prior to having [her] time recorded for the day.” (Id.) The process of logging in to the timekeeping systems “would often take several minutes every day” for which Plaintiff was not compensated, (id. ¶ 29); logging in to ADP takes approximately three to four minutes, (id. ¶ 30). GCS employees were unable to log into ADP more “than [three] minutes before their shift was scheduled to begin” and if employees “did not complete the log-in process before [one] minute after their shift was scheduled to begin, ” their supervisor would be notified. (Id.) When a supervisor was notified, the employee would not be paid for the first ten minutes of their shift, “and neither would the time the employee spent being reprimanded for their late log-in.” (Id.)

With respect to the phone tracking system, any time that employees “spent off the phone during their shift would not be counted, ” even if the employees were in work-related meetings, “training, administrative tasks, bathroom breaks, or any other task.” (Id. ¶ 31.) Time spent on the phone might also not be counted if employees “took too long on a call, were on hold or getting a busy signal, or had a call drop or a customer hang up.” (Id.) These incidents also resulted in a disciplinary meeting with their supervisor, “which would result in further unpaid time.” (Id.) As a result of the complexities of logging into both systems, GCS' policies, and defective equipment used for clocking in and out, Plaintiff was not paid for a “significant amount of time worked” per week. (Id. ¶¶ 29-33.) GCS did not record the unpaid time Plaintiff worked nor did they provide Plaintiff with “accurate wage notices and wage statements.” (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) To date, GCS continues to employ these timekeeping measures and fails to provide employees with the required wages and preserve payroll records. (Id. ¶ 40.)

c. Sexual harassment allegations

During Plaintiff's employment at GCS, Plaintiff worked on the same floor as Ohemeng, another call center representative. (Id. ¶ 42.) Ohemeng frequently teased, made “sexual comments” toward, and made “physical contact . . . in a sexual manner” with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 42-48.) Plaintiff “pushed Ohemeng's hand away and told him to stop, but Ohemeng repeated this behavior on several occasions in spite of Plaintiff's protests.” (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff complained to supervisors and management about Ohemeng's comments and behavior and her supervisors accused her of being a “troublemaker and problematic employee.” (Id. ¶ 49.) As Ohemeng's behavior continued, other co-workers were hostile toward Plaintiff for reporting Ohemeng. (Id. ¶ 50.)

In August of 2019, Plaintiff reported Ohemeng's behavior to the human resources department of GCS. (Id. ¶ 51.) On or around August 21, 2019, Plaintiff had a meeting with Currie and Hoffman, two executives at GCS, among others. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 51.) “Plaintiff discussed her abuse in detail, stated that she was fearful for her safety, and asked that she be allowed to move to a different floor away from Ohemeng and other co-workers with whom she no longer felt comfortable.” (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiff was told she could not be removed until human resources completed its investigation. (Id.) Human resources further informed Plaintiff that she was not to speak to anyone else regarding Ohemeng until after the investigation was complete. (Id.) After meeting with human resources, Plaintiff “felt increasingly threatened and uncomfortable around Ohemeng and others on her floor” and filed a report with the New York City Police Department. (Id. ¶ 53.) During one of her shifts after her meeting with human resources, Plaintiff was confronted at her desk by her supervisor and a co-worker who asked her why she was still there, “told her she needed to get out, and proceeded to pace behind [her] desk in an aggressive manner until she finished her work.” (Id. ¶ 54.)

d. Actions leading up to and Plaintiff's termination

On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff emailed the New York City Transit Authority, who contracted with GCS, to inform them that she did not feel comfortable going to work due to Ohemeng and her other co-workers' behavior. (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiff “resolved to wait for a response to her . . . email before she returned to work.” (Id. ¶ 56.) On or around August 30, 2019, Hoffman called Plaintiff and told her she would be fired if she did not return to work at GCS. (Id. ¶ 57.) During the call, Hoffman stated that Ohemeng had been fired, but Plaintiff later learned Ohemeng was still employed with GCS. (Id.) “In or around early September, Plaintiff received a letter from Hoffman dated September 3, 2019.” (Id. ¶ 58.) The letter indicated receipt of Plaintiff's August 29, 2019 email, stated that Plaintiff was “informed . . . to keep everything confidential, which [she] declined to do, ” warned Plaintiff that she was not on approved leave and that “disciplinary action” would be taken if she failed to return to work, and “represented” that Plaintiff's request to change floors away from Ohemeng and other co-workers had been approved. (Id. ¶¶ 58-60.) After learning from former coworkers that Ohemeng was still employed at GCS, Plaintiff never returned to work. (Id. ¶ 61.) Plaintiff alleges that she was employed at GCS “until her constructive termination in September [of] 2019.” (Id. ¶ 24.) GCS fired Ohemeng in September of 2019. (Id. ¶ 62.) Plaintiff contends that she was traumatized by her experiences at GCS and suffers from “extreme stress and depression” as a result. (Id. ¶ 63.)

e. Instant lawsuit

On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed this suit in federal court. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks designation as representative of the FLSA collective plaintiffs, designation of this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, designation of Plaintiff as representative of the class, unpaid wages, liquidated and punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs related to this action, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. (Id. at 24-25.)

f. Prior state court class action and settlement

On October 1, 2019, a class action suit was filed in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County (the “State Court”) in which the plaintiffs sought to recover “unpaid spread-of-hours premium pay” and liquidated damages under the NYLL and supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations (the “State Court Class Action”). (...