Buchspies v. Pfizer, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 October 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-16083
• Parties: JONATHAN BUCHSPIES, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

JONATHAN BUCHSPIES, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-16083

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 10, 2019

Not for Publication

OPINION

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Pfizer Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Pfizer") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.E. 8. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition (D.E. 11) to which Defendant replied (D.E. 12).¹ The Court reviewed the parties' submissions and decided the motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. FACTUAL² & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was a chemical analyst at Pfizer, and was paid an hourly rate from 2013 until his termination on May 17, 2018. Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 14. He was classified as an "overtime eligible employee" and was not an "exempt" employee as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Id. ¶¶ 12, 21. Plaintiff alleges that while employed, he "often" worked more than forty hours per week but never received overtime pay. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. Pfizer purportedly set Plaintiff's weekly work schedule. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff further contends that two weeks before he was terminated, he raised complaints with human resources regarding unpaid overtime. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff was terminated on May 17, 2018 and was not told why he was terminated. Id. ¶ 14.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 13, 2018. D.E. 1. The Complaint asserts claims for (1) a FLSA violation as a result of Defendant's failure to pay overtime (Count One); (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") (Count Two); and (3) a FLSA retaliation claim (Count Three). On March 25, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint, in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint that fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" For a complaint to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), it must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Further, a plaintiff must "allege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of her claims." Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, district courts must separate the factual and legal elements. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-211 (3d Cir. 2009). Restatements of the elements of a claim are legal conclusions, and therefore, are not entitled to a presumption of truth. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 224 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court, however, "must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true." Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210. Even if plausibly pled, however, a complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss if the facts alleged do not state "a legally cognizable cause of action." Turner v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 14-7148, 2015 WL 12826480, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 23, 2015).

III. ANALYSIS

a. Documents Outside the Pleadings

At the outset, throughout its motion to dismiss, Defendant relies an email chain that was not referenced in the Complaint nor included as an exhibit to the pleading. Defendant argues that the Court may rely on this document and information discussed therein in dismissing the Complaint because it is integral to and explicitly relied upon in the Complaint. See Def. Br. at 2 n.1; Def. Reply at 6.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court ordinarily considers only the factual allegations, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters of public record. A court may also rely on "a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint." U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). A document is integral if a "claim would not exist but-for the existence of the document." Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc., No. 10-3196, 2011 WL 2474215, at *1 (D.N.J. June 20, 2011). The document at issue here is an email chain between Plaintiff and a Pfizer employee. The email chain was initiated by the Pfizer employee to schedule a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss "a matter that was raised to the company's attention." See Decl. of Eric Eichinger ("Eichinger Decl.") Ex. A at 5, D.E. 8-5. In a later email in the chain, the employee requests that Plaintiff provide additional information regarding his overtime complaints. Although Plaintiff's allegation that he complained about Pfizer's overtime pay practices is a critical component of his FLSA retaliation claim, the email chain is not the actual complaint. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff made his complaint during an in-person meeting. Id. at 3. Thus, the email chain does not form the basis of Plaintiff's claim and is not integral. Moreover, neither the email chain nor any facts in the emails are mentioned in the Complaint. As a result, the Court will not consider the email chain in assessing the sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleading.

Pfizer also provides new facts regarding Plaintiff's termination in the Declaration of Eric Eichinger. See Eichinger Decl. ¶¶ 5. These facts are not asserted in the Complaint and do not even appear in the email chain that Pfizer argues should be considered by the Court. Accordingly, these facts are not integral to or explicitly relied upon in the Complaint and will not be considered at this time. Therefore, for the purposes of this motion, the Court will rely solely on the facts as alleged in the Complaint.³

b. Failure to Pay Overtime (Counts One and Two)

Defendant argues, among other things, that Counts One and Two should be dismissed for lack of specificity. Def. Br. at 10-12. The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime compensation for a non-exempt employee's work that is in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207. The NJWHL mirrors its federal counterpart and "judicial interpretations construing the FLSA are applicable." Crisostomo v. Exclusive Detailing, Inc., No. 08-1771, 2010 WL 2640183, at *5 (D.N.J. June 28, 2010). Thus, the Court considers Counts One and Two together.

To recover overtime compensation under the FLSA, "an employee must prove that he worked overtime hours without compensation, and he must show the amount and extent of his overtime work as a matter of just and reasonable inference." Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Food Lion, 792 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1986)). To state a plausible FLSA claim, "a plaintiff must sufficiently allege forty hours of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the forty hours." Id. at 242 (emphasis in original) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2013)). In adopting this standard, the Third Circuit rejected a stricter approach taken by some courts that requires a plaintiff to allege the number of overtime hours worked. Id. at 241. Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, "a plaintiff's claim that she 'typically' worked forty hours per week, worked extra hours during such a forty-hour week, and was not compensated for extra hours beyond forty hours he or she worked during one or more of those forty-hour weeks, would suffice." Id. at 243.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he "often worked longer hours than the forty (40) hour workweek,"⁴ and that Defendant "set [his] weekly work schedule." Compl. ¶¶ 16-17. The Complaint continues that "[d]espite working more than forty (40) hours per week, the Plaintiff never received overtime pay." Id. ¶ 17. While sparse, these allegations satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in Abington Memorial.

Defendant relies on Lundy and Abington Memorial to argue that Plaintiff fails to set forth a failure to pay overtime claim. Def. Br. at 11. In both cases, however, the plaintiffs' FLSA claims were dismissed because they failed to plausibly plead that they worked more than forty hours in a given week. See Lundy, 711 F.3d at 115 ("[W]e find no plausible claim that FLSA was violated, because Plaintiffs have not alleged a single workweek in which they worked at least 40 hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours."); Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d at 243 ("None of the named plaintiffs has alleged a single workweek in which he or she worked at least forty hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess of forty hours."). As discussed, Plaintiff here pleads that he worked longer than forty hours in a given week but was not paid overtime for the excess hours. Lundy and Davis, therefore, fail to support Defendant's argument.

Defendant also maintains that Plaintiff's overtime violation claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to plead that Pfizer knew or had reason to believe that Plaintiff was working more than forty hours a week without overtime pay. Def. Br. at 6-7. While this precise issue does not appear to have been addressed by the Third Circuit, "various courts have noted that the employee bears some responsibility for the proper implementation of the FLSA's overtime provisions." Clarke v. Flik Int'l Corp., No. 17-1915, 2018 WL 3930091, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2018); see also Guenzel v. Mount Olive Bd. of Educ., No. 10-4452, 2011 WL 5599717, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2011), motion for reconsideration granted on other grounds at 2012 WL 556256 (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2012) ("Where an employer has no knowledge that an employee is...