Katz v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-9856 (VEC) |
| Parties | MONIQUE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and YEKATERINA SKIDANENKO, Plaintiffs, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Monique Katz and Yekaterina Skidanenko bring this action against Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. (“Equinox”) for failure to pay wages pursuant to federal, state, and city law, among other claims. On October 28, 2021, Ms. Katz moved for conditional certification of a collective of personal trainers who allegedly worked without proper compensation; on January 21, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss Ms. Katz's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).[1] For the following reasons Defendant's motion is DENIED, and Plaintiff Katz's motion is GRANTED.
Equinox is a nationwide fitness company with gyms throughout the State of New York. Am. Compl., Dkt. 55 ¶¶ 2, 22 45. Equinox employs personal trainers at different tiers Tier 1 and Tier 2 trainers (“Low-Tier Trainers”), who primarily perform floor shifts, including cleaning, demonstrating workouts, and recruiting members for private training; and Tier 3, Tier 3+, and Tier X trainers (“High-Tier Trainers”), who primarily perform private personal training sessions. Id. ¶¶ 5, 47, 52.
Equinox hired Monique Katz as a Tier 1 personal trainer in August 2015; by August 2016 she had been promoted to Tier 3. Id. ¶¶ 173, 177. Equinox hired Yekaterina Skidanenko as a Tier 1 personal trainer in July 2019; she stopped working due to an injury in October of that same year. Id. ¶¶ 226-29. Ms. Katz and Ms. Skidanenko assert claims of unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours, and unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and New York state and city laws. Id. ¶¶ 333360, 251-300.[2] Ms. Katz also asserts that Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615 et seq., by denying her benefits under the act and then retaliating against her for exercising her rights under the act. Id. ¶¶ 306-320.
This action was brought by Ms. Katz in the Southern District of New York on November 23, 2020. See generally Compl., Dkt. 1. At the time Ms. Katz filed her lawsuit, Ms. Skidanenko had a previously-filed lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of New York. After Judge Kuntz denied Equinox's motion to dismiss Ms. Skidanenko's action, see Skidanenko v. Equinox Holdings Inc. et al., No. 20-CV-01550, Dkt. 35 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021); Tripp Decl., Ex. B, Dkt. 60-2, the parties agreed to consolidate the actions in the Southern District. Pls. Opp., Dkt. 66 at 4. Plaintiff Katz thereafter filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective, see Not. of Mot., Dkt. 38, which Defendant opposes, see Def. Opp., Dkt. 68. On January 21, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss portions of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, see Not. of Mot., Dkt. 58; Plaintiffs oppose the motion, see Pls. Opp, Dkt. 66.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must allege sufficient facts, taken as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.” Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc., 711 F.3d 271, 275 (2d Cir. 2013) ). A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “[T]o survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint does not need to contain detailed or elaborate factual allegations, but only allegations sufficient to raise an entitlement to relief above the speculative level.” Keiler v. Harlequin Enters., Ltd., 751 F.3d 64, 70 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Gibbons v. Malone, 703 F.3d 595, 599 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
In order to state a claim under the FLSA for unpaid overtime work, “a plaintiff must sufficiently allege 40 hours of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.” Bonn-Wittingham v. Project OHR, Inc., 792 Fed.Appx. 71, 75 (2d Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs must “provide sufficient detail about the length and frequency of their unpaid work to support a reasonable inference that they worked more than [40] hours in a given week.” Id. (citing Nakahata v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 201 (2d Cir. 2013)).
Defendant argues that Ms. Katz's FLSA overtime claim must be dismissed for failing to identify uncompensated overtime hours worked in a particular workweek. Def. Mem., Dkt. 59 at 5-9. Plaintiffs assert that Judge Kuntz's prior denial of Equinox's motion to dismiss Ms. Skidanenko's original complaint precludes this Court's analysis of this claim, but that, even if Judge Kuntz's decision does not have a preclusive effect, Ms. Katz has properly stated a claim.[3]Pls. Opp. at 5-15. The Court finds that issue preclusion does not apply, but that Ms. Katz has sufficiently pled an overtime violation.
Issue preclusion applies when (1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the party raising the issue had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in that previous proceeding; and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid, final judgment on the merits. Zapata v. HSBC Holdings PLC, 414 F.Supp.3d 342, 348 (E.D.N.Y. 2019), aff'd, 825 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Ms. Katz's claim founders on the very first element: that the identical issue was raised in the prior proceeding. Id. Ms. Katz, who worked at a different tier than Ms. Skidanenko, alleges different workweeks in which she worked overtime without compensation, and alleges different kinds of unpaid activities that made up that overtime work; she has made entirely different factual allegations, even if her allegations give rise to the same type of legal claim. Def. Reply, Dkt. 71 at 1.[4] The Court therefore turns to the merits of Defendant's motion.
Ms. Katz pleads that during the April 29, 2018 to May 12, 2018 pay period, she worked 54 hour-long personal training sessions; spent 36 hours performing personal training session activities; and spent 30 minutes attending weekly meetings, totaling 90.5 hours during a two-week period. That means that, for at least one of the two weeks in the pay period, she worked in excess of 40 hours. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 184-85. She also alleges that for the workweek of January 7, 2018 to January 13, 2018, she worked approximately 45.5 hours without overtime pay, and that for the workweek of March 25, 2018 to March 31, 2018, she worked 50.5 hours without overtime pay. Id. ¶¶ 188-89. Equinox makes much of the fact that Ms. Katz's first allegation is for a bi-weekly pay period, and that all of her hours worked are approximations. Def. Mem. at 6-7. But, as Plaintiffs note, Ms. Katz has pled three specific weeks during which she worked more than 40 hours without receiving overtime pay, Pls. Opp. at 12, and approximations are not fatal to an overtime claim under the FLSA at the motion to dismiss stage, Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 88-90 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). To the extent that Equinox has records reflecting the hours Ms. Katz worked and the wages she was paid that undermine her claims, Equinox will be free to rebut her claims on a summary judgment motion or at trial. At the pleadings stage, however, Ms. Katz has clearly stated a claim.[5] III. Ms. Katz Has Stated a Claim Under the FMLA
Defendant next argues that Ms. Katz has failed to state a claim for interference or retaliation under the FMLA. Def. Mem. at 12-14. To state a claim for FMLA interference, a plaintiff must plead, inter alia, denial of a benefit to which she is entitled under the FMLA. Fernandez v. Windmill Distrib. Co., 159 F.Supp.3d 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted). To state a claim for retaliation under the FMLA, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) she exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of retaliatory intent. Donahue v. Asia TV USA Ltd., 208 F.Supp.3d 505, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Ms. Katz alleges that she requested leave beginning in December 2019 that was approved under the New York State Paid Family Leave Act but denied under the FMLA. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 205-07. After she returned to work, she requested a second period of leave, from February 26, 2020 until March 5, 2020. Id. ¶ 208. This request was granted, as was a request to amend the start date of her leave to February 25, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 209-10.
Ms. Katz maintains that her employer violated her rights under the FMLA in the following ways: by failing to retract a written warning for the December 2019 leave and improperly treating it as an unapproved absence, and by firing her on March 4, 2020 in part for taking purportedly unapproved leave, even though the leave had, in fact, been approved. Id. ¶¶ 206-07, 212-16. A. Ms. Katz Has Stated a Claim for Interference Under the FMLA
Defendant argues that Ms. Katz cannot establish a prima facie claim of FMLA interference because she was not denied any benefits under the FMLA, given that she was granted both periods of leave that she requested. Def....
To continue reading
Request your trial