United States District Court, S.D. New York
LOREN RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated Plaintiff,
REGEIS CARE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
G. SCHOFIELD, United States District Judge
Loren Richardson brings this action alleging that Defendants
Regeis Care Center, LLC, Chaim Sieger and Abraham Sieger
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by
failing to pay him proper overtime. Defendants moved to
dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and attached numerous exhibits in support of their
motion. On October 11, 2016, Defendants' motion was
converted into a motion for summary judgment, and the parties
were afforded the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing
and evidence. On consideration of the parties'
submissions, Defendants' motion is granted.
following facts are drawn from the evidence submitted by the
parties in connection with the present motion. For purposes
of this motion, all factual disputes are resolved, and all
reasonable inferences are drawn, in favor of Richardson.
See Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831
F.3d 64, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2016).
Richardson is a Registered Professional Nurse who is licensed
and registered to practice in the State of New York. On
September 21, 2012, Richardson was hired as a Registered
Nurse Supervisor by Regeis Care Center. Richardson signed a
notice and acknowledgement of his salary, overtime rate and
designated payday on August 30, 2012. The notice and
acknowledgement states his rate of pay as $88, 500 per year
and lists him as exempt from overtime pay. On September 21,
2012, and again on January 1, 2013, Richardson signed a form
specifically for exempt employees which states that
Richardson's pay is a weekly salary of $1, 701.9240. On
January 1, 2014, and January 30, 2015, Richardson signed
otherwise identical forms which list his weekly salary as $1,
September 21, 2012, through December 2013, Richardson
generally worked 35 hours per week, consisting of five shifts
of seven hours per week. In or about December 2013,
Richardson requested that he be permitted to work two
additional shifts of seven hours each in order to supplement
his income. Regeis Care Center granted Richardson's
request, and on certain weeks, Richardson worked extra shifts
as a Registered Nurse Supervisor, for which he received extra
October 26, 2015, Richardson was suspended without pay for
three days, from October 27, 2015, through October 29, 2015.
A Regeis Care Center employee counseling document signed by
both Richardson and his supervisor states that the suspension
was the result of Richardson's failure to update the plan
of care for a resident following a doctor's appointment
and his failure to initiate a care plan for another resident.
Richardson states that the suspension occurred because he
complained to his supervisors that he had too much work. The
written Regeis Care Center discipline policy permits
suspension for “[i]nefficiency, incompetence,
insubordination or negligence in the performance of
duties” and “[r]efusal to accept reasonable and
proper assignments from authorized supervisors, ” among
other policy violations.
to Regeis Care Center's payment reports from April 29,
2013, through December 30, 2015, Richardson never made less
than his weekly salary of $1, 701.92 per week except for the
week of November 5, 2015, which reflected his three-day
suspension in the week prior. For weeks when Richardson
worked more than 35 hours per week, he was paid $48.62 per
hour on top of his weekly salary, which is equivalent to the
prorated hourly amount of his $88, 500 annual salary. In some
weeks, Richardson took vacation, personal, sick or holiday
time, and was paid at least his weekly salary of $1, 701.92
despite working fewer than 35 hours in those weeks.
A. Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate where the record before the court
establishes that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute
as to a material fact exists “if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court
of the basis for the summary judgment motion and identifying
those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of
a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1); see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Victory v.
Pataki, 814 F.3d 47, 58-59 (2d Cir. 2016). Courts must
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in the
non-moving party's favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 255. “[A] party may not rely on mere speculation or
conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a
motion for summary judgment.” Hicks v. Baines,
593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (alteration in original)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, a
party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed “must
support the assertion” by citing to the record or
showing that “the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
FLSA Overtime Requirements
to certain exceptions, “FLSA requires employers to pay
all employees . . . overtime of time and one-half for hours
worked in excess of forty hours per week.” Glatt v.
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528, 533 (2d
Cir. 2016); see also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). An
employee who is “employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacity, ” is exempt
from FLSA's overtime requirement. 29 U.S.C. §
213(a)(1). “To qualify for this exemption[, ] an
employee's work must satisfy both a duties ...