Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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

October 24, 2017


         SECTION: “H”



         Before the Court is Defendant Flight Services and Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 39). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.


         Plaintiffs, Stanley Cook, Kerionna Bradley, Kennedy Prader, Darion Winters, Terrance Bruster, Donald Johnson, Christian Flores, Damon Perriloux, II, Lanisha Bruster, Rashard Johnson, Pablo Holdine, Darioen Buchanan, Janay Williams, Kristoffer Wilbanks, Cardell Andry, Johnny Brasley, and Raven Barre are employees or former employees of Defendant Flight Services and Systems, Inc. They allege that Defendant has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay them mandated minimum and overtime wages.

         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 “arbitrarily cut” their hours after the work was completed due to policies aimed at: (1) requiring managers to attain a 20% profit margin; (2) not allowing employees to work more than 30 hours per week to avoid the application of the Affordable Care Act; and (3) deducting for time spent on the job site waiting or when Defendant felt the work performed took longer than expected. 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.

         This Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint based on these same facts for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It held that Plaintiffs had failed to allege an FLSA violation or collective action with sufficient particularity. This Court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to correct these deficiencies, and they subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint. Despite their amendments, Defendant has once again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA and collective action claims for failure to state a claim. It also alleges that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed or time-barred because they do not relate back to the original complaint.


         To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”[1] A claim is “plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “draw reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[2]A court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must “draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”[3] The court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.[4] To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's claims are true.[5] If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, the court must dismiss the claim.[6] The court's review is limited to the complaint and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.[7]


         A. FLSA Claims

         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.[8] 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.”[9]

         Defendant asks this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims because the Second Amended Complaint still fails to adequately allege FLSA violations or a basis for a collective action. In dismissing Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, this Court pointed out that the pleading requirements are satisfied in the FLSA context when the complaint contains the “‘approximate date ranges, as well as the approximate number of hours worked' for which the plaintiff claims he was under-compensated.”[10] The Court noted that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint lacked allegations of “hours worked, wage earned, or even so much as a year range of when the thirteen named plaintiffs worked for Defendant.”[11] In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs added allegations of the job title, hourly wage, and date range of employment for each Plaintiff. Defendant argues that despite these additions, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint still fails to sufficiently allege a claim under the FLSA. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs must plead the approximate dates of the FLSA violations and an approximate number of hours for which they claim they were denied overtime or minimum wage. This Court disagrees.

         “By alleging the amount that Defendants paid Plaintiffs, the time period during which Plaintiffs worked, and that Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty (40) hours and were never paid one-and-half times their hourly rate, Plaintiffs have met [their] burden.”[12] There are sufficient allegations in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to put Defendant on notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, even if it lacks an approximate number of hours for which each Plaintiff alleges he or she was not properly compensated. Indeed, Plaintiffs have alleged that due to Defendants' complained-of policies, they often did not receive itemized paystubs or “were provided paychecks that did not reflect the correct number of hours actually worked.” It is clear from the facts of the Second Amended ...

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.