Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Second Circuit Holds FLSA Plaintiff Must Plausibly Plead Willfulness to Benefit from Three-Year Statute of Limitations
Practical Law Legal Update w-030-8320 (Approx. 3 pages)
Second Circuit Holds FLSA Plaintiff Must Plausibly Plead Willfulness to Benefit from Three-Year Statute of Limitations
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 03 May 2021 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Whiteside v. Hover-Davis, Inc., the Second Circuit held that a mere allegation of willfulness is insufficient to allow a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) plaintiff to benefit from the extended three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA at the pleadings stage.
On April 27, 2021, in Whiteside v. Hover-Davis, Inc., the Second Circuit held that:
- The mere allegation of willfulness is insufficient to allow an FLSA plaintiff to benefit from the extended three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA at the pleadings stage.
- An FLSA plaintiff must allege facts that permit a plausible inference that the defendant willfully violated the FLSA for the three-year exception to apply.
The Second Circuit noted that:
- There is a circuit split between the Tenth and Sixth Circuits as to the applicable pleading requirements in cases in which a plaintiff alleges willfulness to benefit from an extended statute of limitations.
- The Tenth Circuit has held that the mere allegation of willfulness is sufficient for the three-year exception to apply under the FLSA (Fernandez v. Clean House, LLC, 883 F.3d 1296, 1298–99 (10th Cir. 2018)).
- The Sixth Circuit has held that "[a] plaintiff ‘must do more than make the conclusory assertion that a defendant acted willfully" to invoke the three-year exception (Crugher v. Prelesnik, 761 F.3d 610, 617 (6th Cir. 2014)).
- The Supreme Court has held that claims must rest on well-pleaded factual allegations and that "a court should not accept as true allegations that amount to mere legal conclusions" (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
- Whether a defendant has willfully violated the FLSA is a mixed question of law and fact on which the plaintiff carries the burden of proof (Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139, 141 (2d Cir. 1999)).
- Willfulness operates as an independent element of claims for willful violation of the FLSA.
The Second Circuit found that the allegation that plaintiff was asked for a period of time to perform job responsibilities typically performed by nonexempt employees was insufficient to support a willfulness element because plaintiff failed to allege any of the following:
- That defendants adjusted his salary to reflect that of a nonexempt employee.
- That he ever complained about the situation to his managers.
- Any details about who asked him to change roles or whether that manager, or any other manager suggested an awareness of impropriety.
- That his managers acted in any manner suggesting an awareness that their actions violated or could violate the FLSA.
Denny Chin, Circuit Judge dissented, holding that plaintiff plausibly alleged a willful violation of the FLSA by pleading facts to support the inference that defendants at least recklessly disregarded their obligations under the FLSA.