Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-612 (KAD) |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Parties | NANDE NQADOLO, et al., Plaintiff, v. CARE AT HOME, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Plaintiffs Nande Nqadolo and Pamela Mangali bring this putative collective and class action against Defendants, Care at Home LLC, Suzanne Karp, and Daniel Karp (collectively “Defendants”), on behalf of themselves and similarly situated home care assistants employed by Defendants. Plaintiffs assert in an Amended Complaint[1]two causes of action by way of six counts (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-58 et seq. Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or alternatively to strike certain claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), which Plaintiffs oppose. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED and Defendants' motion to strike is GRANTED. (ECF No. 27)
To survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 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 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Legal conclusions and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not entitled to a presumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Nevertheless, when reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw “all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor.” Interworks Sys. Inc. v. Merch. Fin. Corp., 604 F.3d 692, 699 (2d Cir. 2010).
Under Rule 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “[T]he party moving to strike ‘bears a heavy burden' and must show that ‘(1) no evidence in support of the allegations would be admissible; (2) the allegations have no bearing on the issues in the case; and (3) permitting allegations to stand would result in prejudice to the movant.'” Walczak v. Pratt & Whitney, No. 3:18-cv-00563 (VAB), 2019 WL 145526, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., 936 F.Supp.2d 1, 16 (D. Conn. 2013)). Walczak, 2019 WL 145526, at *2 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gierlinger v. Town of Brant, No. 13-cv-00370 (AM), 2015 WL 3441125, at *1 (“[B]ecause striking a [part] of a pleading is a drastic remedy . . . motions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor by the federal courts and are infrequently granted.”).
The Court accepts as true the allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which are summarized as follows.
Defendants employ live-in domestic service employees, referred to as home care assistants (“HCA”) or caregivers, to live with clients, who, due to severe medical conditions, require assistance caring for themselves. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 52. HCAs assist clients with cooking, cleaning, dressing, bathing, eating, medication, personal hygiene, and getting to and from medical appointments. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 50, 53. HCAs work 13-hour shifts with three one-hour meal breaks and an eight-hour sleep break each day. Id. Plaintiff Nande Nqadolo worked as an HCA for Defendants from March 22, 2021 to December 15, 2021, Am. Compl. ¶ 17, and Plaintiff Pamela Mangali has worked as an HCA for Defendants since December 7, 2015. Am. Compl. ¶ 18.
Defendants' HCAs are assigned to live on-site because clients frequently require assistance at any time of day. Am. Compl. ¶ 47. HCAs are routinely interrupted during their scheduled meal breaks and sleep breaks, often failing to get five hours of uninterrupted sleep. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1011. Defendants failed to record all hours worked by HCAs and accordingly failed to pay them overtime for the hours spent performing work during those interruptions. Am. Compl. ¶ 12. Defendants deducted full meal breaks despite knowing that Plaintiffs worked through meal breaks or ate their meals with the clients and otherwise failed to accurately record the hours worked by Plaintiffs during meal breaks. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55-59. Defendants also instructed their HCAs not to document sleep interruptions on their timesheets and instead to call in the interruptions; however, Defendants did not document the sleep interruption calls. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65-67. Defendants did not pay HCAs for sleep interruptions. Am. Compl. ¶ 69.
Defendants also furnished food and lodging to Plaintiffs but did not provide any record of the value of the food or lodging for the purposes of calculating their regular rate of pay for calculating an overtime rate. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 80-81. However, Defendants did not deduct the value of food and lodging from the straight pay Plaintiffs received. Am. Compl. ¶ 86. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have improperly withheld overtime that should have been paid to Plaintiffs and other HCAs in violation of state and federal wage and hours laws. Am. Compl. ¶ 13.
Plaintiffs assert two causes of action by way of six counts against Defendants based on their alleged failure to pay earned overtime. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violate the FLSA and the CMWA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and putative class members for interruptions to their meal and sleep breaks[2]and by failing to add the value of food and lodging to their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating earned but unpaid overtime. Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs are domestic service employees and as such are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA (and therefore the CMWA). Defendants further argue that any reference to an enhanced rate of pay for food and lodging provided by Defendants should be stricken because Plaintiffs admitted in their Amended Complaint that Defendants did not reduce or deduct from their pay the value of such food and lodging. The Court addresses each issue in turn.
Sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA establishes minimum wage, maximum hours, and overtime pay requirements. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-07. Sections 213 and 214 of the FLSA provide various exemptions from these requirements. First, the “companionship exemption” provides that:
The provisions of sections 206 () and 207 of this title shall not apply with respect to . . . any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary)[.]
29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). Second, the “live-in exemption” provides that “[t]he provisions of section 207 of this title shall not apply with respect to . any employee who is employed in domestic service in a household and who resides in such household.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(21). In 1975, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) promulgated regulations that permitted third-party employers like Defendants to claim the companionship and live-in exemptions. See 29 C.F.R. § 552.109.
In 2015, “given the changes to the home care industry and workforce,” the DOL reversed course on the third-party employer issue and promulgated new regulations. See Home Care Ass'n of America v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 2506 (2016) (citing Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Domestic Service, 78 Fed.Reg. 60,454, 60,455 (Oct. 1, 2013)). With respect to companionship services, the revised regulation states that “[t]hird party employers of employees engaged in companionship services . . . may not avail themselves of the minimum wage and overtime exemption provided by section [2]13(a)(15).” 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a) (2015). With respect to live-in workers, the revised regulation states that “[t]hird party employers of employees engaged in live-in domestic service employment . . . may not avail themselves of the overtime exemption provided by section [2]13(b)(21).” Id. § 552.109(c). Collectively, the Court refers to these regulations as the 2015 Rule.
Defendants seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the ground that the 2015 Rule, which provides that the companionship and live-in exemptions to the FLSA do not apply to third-party employers like Defendants, is invalid. And because the CMWA relies upon the FLSA,[3]if the 2015 Rule is invalid, Plaintiffs claims under the CMWA fail as well. As further discussed...
To continue reading
Request your trial