Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cook v. Flight Services and Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

April 20, 2017

STANLEY COOK
v.
FLIGHT SERVICES AND SYSTEMS INC.

         SECTION "H"

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs, Stanley Cook, Kerionna Bradley, Kennedy Prader, Darion Winters, Terrance Bruster, Donald Johnson, Christian Flores, Damon Perrilloux, II, Olivia Johnson, Lanisha Bruster, Rashard Johnson, Holdine Pablo, and Darioen Buchanan, are employees or former employees of Defendant Flight Services & Systems, Inc. They allege that Defendant has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime.

         Specifically, Plaintiffs make two primary complaints about their compensation and the compensation of other similarly situated employees.

         First, they allege that they were not compensated for job-related training. Second, they allege that Defendant “cut” their hours after the work was complete due to policies aimed at:

(i) requiring managers to attain a 20% profit margin;
(ii) not allowing employees to work more than 30 hours per week so as to avoid the application of the Affordable Care Act; and (iii) deducting for time spent on the job site engaged to wait or when the defendant felt the work performed took longer than anticipated.[1]

         Plaintiffs allege that because of this practice their paychecks did not reflect the correct number of hours actually worked. Plaintiffs bring this collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees who consent to join the litigation, pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA. Defendants have filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim under the FLSA.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[2] A claim is “plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “[d]raw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[3]A court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must “draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”[4] The court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.[5]

         To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's claims are true.[6] “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' ” will not suffice.[7] Rather, the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff's claim.[8]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         An employer violates the FLSA if it fails to pay covered employees at least one and one-half times their normal rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week or fails to pay covered employees a minimum wage.[9] Thus, in order to state a claim for unpaid overtime or minimum wages under the FLSA, a plaintiff must plead: “(1) that there existed an employer-employee relationship during the unpaid . . . periods claimed; (2) that the employee engaged in activities within the coverage of the FLSA; (3) that the employer violated the FLSA's overtime or minimum wage requirements; and (4) the amount of overtime or minimum wage compensation due.”[10]

         Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this case because (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege FLSA violations with sufficient particularity, and (2) Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege the basis for a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.