Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance, Civil Action No. 10cv11729–NG.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: GERTNER
• Citation: Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance, 161 Lab.Cas. P 35941, 814 F.Supp.2d 17 (D. Mass. 2011)
• Decision Date: 28 August 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10cv11729–NG.
• Parties: Barbatine NORCEIDE, Narces Norceide, and Jack Walsh on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, d/b/a Cambridge Hospital, Somerville Hospital, and Whidden Hospital, Defendant.

161 Lab.Cas. P 35,941

814 F.Supp.2d 17

Barbatine NORCEIDE, Narces Norceide, and Jack Walsh on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, d/b/a Cambridge Hospital, Somerville Hospital, and Whidden Hospital, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10cv11729–NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Aug. 28, 2011.

Peter Francis Russell, Russell & Associates, Needham, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Donald W. Schroeder, James M. Nicholas, Kevin M. McGinty, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO AMEND, MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

GERTNER, District Judge:

This is a wage-and-hour class action in which current and former employees of Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) allege that CHA deprived them of compensation for time worked during their 30–minute meal breaks and before and after their shifts. They claim these practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Massachusetts Wage Act, and their employment contracts with CHA. The violations allegedly resulted from CHA's practice of pressuring its employees not to record time worked outside of their shifts, thereby routinely stripping its employees of wages to which they were entitled.

CHA has moved to dismiss most of Plaintiffs' state and federal law claims (document # 16). Plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint (document # 29) and for conditional certification of their FLSA claims (document # 15). For the foregoing reasons, CHA's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Taking all well-pled allegations as true and making all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, Gargano v. Liberty Int'l Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48–49 (1st Cir.2009), the facts are as follows:

Formed in 1996 and comprised of Cambridge Hospital, Somerville Hospital, and Whidden Hospital, along with more than 30 clinics, primary care centers, and community health centers, CHA is a healthcare system that serves the residents of Cambridge, Somerville and Boston's Metro–North region. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17 (document # 8); Bennett Aff. ¶ 3 (document # 21–1). CHA employs approximately 4,200 people, including nurses, certified nursing assistants, secretaries, pharmacy technicians, dietary food workers, and housekeeping staff. Id.; Gilyan Aff. ¶ 7 (document # 21–15). The three named Plaintiffs—Barbatine Norceide (“Barbatine”), Narces Norceide (“Narces”), and Jack Walsh (“Walsh”)—are current and former, non-exempt, hourly employees of these hospitals. Compl. ¶ 19. Barbatine is a former unit secretary for Cambridge Hospital; Narces, a member of the Massachusetts Nurses Association (“MNA”), is a currently-employed registered nurse who practices at both Cambridge Hospital and Whidden Hospital; and Walsh is a former employee who worked both in the pharmacy department and as a Counselor and Patient Access Representative at Cambridge Hospital. Id.

From October 12, 2007, through October 12, 2010 (the “class period”), Barbatine, Narces, Walsh, and the similarly-situated CHA workers they represent (collectively “Plaintiffs”) routinely worked before and after their shifts and during their 30–minute meal breaks, often at the request of their supervisors. Id. ¶¶ 20–22. They were required to carry cell phones and pagers on them during their meals breaks and instructed to respond immediately to all calls. Id. ¶ 20. As a result, employees often took “meals at their desks or in locations convenient so that they [could] be contacted by their supervisors and co-workers for work-related matters during their meal breaks.” Id. “[N]early all of [Barbatine's] lunches were interrupted with work-related matters; a colleague, a doctor or a nurse or a patient always needed something,” and she was regularly asked to stay an extra 30 to 60 minutes after her shifts ended. Barbatine Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6 (document # 8–1). Narces' meal breaks “were interrupted more than half of the time,” and he often completed preparatory tasks for about 10 minutes before his shifts began and was “expected” to stay late in order to “transition to the next shift.” Narces Decl. ¶ 4 (document # 8–2). Walsh “seldom” got a meal break and was often “directed” by his managers to work an additional 1–3 hours each week, either before or after his shifts. Walsh Decl. ¶ 4 (document # 8–3).

CHA employed three different time-keeping systems during the class period. Up until late 2007, all non-exempt CHA employees were individually responsible for entering their time into an electronically maintained timesheet located on CHA's intranet, known as “Staffnet.” Gilyan Aff. ¶ 4. After employees input their time, their managers reviewed the Staffnet entries and approved the timesheets. Id. ¶ 6. Beginning in late November 2007, CHA transitioned to a new software product called “ANSOS,” which scheduled staff working in CHA's “costs centers” at the three hospital campuses. Id. ¶¶ 7, 11. The ANSOS system allowed managers to schedule the employees necessary to fill each shift and then print a paper schedule, which was posted in each clinical unit of the three hospitals. Id. ¶ 8. According to CHA, employees could make notations on this sheet when their time exceeded their scheduled hours. Id. ¶ 10. All employees who did not work in “costs centers”—i.e., pharmacy technicians, housekeepers, laboratory technicians—continued to use Staffnet. Id. ¶ 7.

Then, in April 2008, CHA implemented a project to add an electronic timekeeping component, known as the McKesson Time and Attendance System, to the ANSOS system. Id. ¶ 12. This system allowed employees to record the time they began and ended their shifts by either swiping a card or entering the time into a webclock. Id. ¶ 15. The McKesson Time and Attendance system would then automatically deduct 30 minutes from the compensable working time, unless a manager informed payroll otherwise. Id. ¶¶ 15–16. The McKesson system was first rolled out in August 2009 for employees working in the laboratory at Cambridge Hospital and, then in October 2009, for employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement between CHA and the Massachusetts Nurses Association (“MNA”). According to CHA, Barbatine used McKesson Time and Attendance for a few weeks, Narces used ANSOS prior to the implementation of McKesson Time and Attendance, and Walsh only used Staffnet. Id. ¶¶ 17–18.

Regardless of what timekeeping system was used, CHA employees were routinely paid only for the time worked during their pre-scheduled shifts—which allotted 30–minutes for an unpaid meal break—rather the actual time during which they performed compensable labor. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 22–24. As a result, Walsh, Narces, and Barbatine claimed that they did not receive wages for about two to four hours of work each week. See Walsh Decl. ¶ 4; Narces Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4; Barbatine Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 6. While all three time-keeping systems theoretically enabled its employees to report time worked during a meal break or before/after a shift, CHA “fail[ed] and refused/discouraged payment of time outside of schedule shifts, creating an atmosphere w[h]ere time worked outside of the schedule shift was ‘swept under the rug’ and not paid.” Compl. ¶ 23. Accordingly to Narces, even when he complained that he worked through his break, “[t]here was no override of the payroll system's automatic deduction.” Narces Decl. ¶ 3. Barbatine alleges that “[t]here was no avenue for [her] to complain that [she] did not get a meal break,” and she could not “override ... the payroll system's automatic deduction.” Barbatine Decl. ¶ 5. According to Walsh, “[t]here was ... an atmosphere whereby if you complained about not getting a meal break or not being paid for time worked outside of your scheduled shift, management would ask you: ‘Do you still want your job?’ ” Walsh Decl. ¶ 5.

II. DISCUSSION

There are three pending motions in this case: Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' motion to amend, and Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. I will address each in turn.

A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

CHA moves to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) Barbatine and Narces' federal and state overtime claims fail because they do not allege working more than 40 hours in a week; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a violation of the FLSA's minimum wage provision; (3) Plaintiffs are precluded from recouping unpaid wages pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 148, § 149 because they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and (4) as hospital employees, Plaintiffs are exempt from recouping unpaid overtime under state law. Addressing each, I must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and make all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor. Gargano, 572 F.3d at 48. I may take into account documents “central to plaintiffs' claim” or “sufficiently referred to in the complaint” without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993). To survive CHA's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

1. FLSA (Count I)

Enacted in 1938, the FLSA ensures basic worker rights for non-exempt employees. It guarantees that every non-exempt employee be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour worked and receive overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. As explained by the FLSA's governing regulations, “[w]ork not requested but suffered or permitted is work time.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 (“For example, an employee may voluntarily continue to work at the...