Justice Thomas Feinman
Defendants employers moved for dismissal of complaint arguing the claims failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs alleged harms and losses resulting from alleged unlawful workplace practices. They claimed violations of the Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs claimed defendants engaged in illegal labor and wage-related practices. They also argued they were subjected to retaliatory employment actions. The court found plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged sufficient facts indicating defendants employed them, possessed the power to control them, hired and fired them, and set plaintiffs’ rate and method of payment. It concluded the amended complaint stated valid claims under the Labor Law as worker Naidu alleged he received "shift pay" representing an eight hour work day, but his weekly hours exceeded 50 uncompensated hours. Labor Law §160 required an employer to pay an employee overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours. Thus, as the amended complaint alleged plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not sufficiently paid, the court ruled the causes of action in the amended complaint were cognizable under the law, denying defendants’ motion.
