2.149 - 2. Jurisdiction

• Jurisdiction: New York

2. Jurisdiction

An FLSA plaintiff in the Second Circuit must allege more than he or she was improperly paid; sufficient details must be alleged about the length and frequency of the unpaid work to support a reasonable inference that he or she worked more than 40 hours in a given week for which there was insufficient compensation.¹⁶³⁸ The Lundy or “plausibility” standard in the Second Circuit thus requires more than just generalities in FLSA complaints.¹⁶³⁹

While under Garcia FLSA actions by local and municipal employees in federal court are permissible, such actions by New York State employees cannot be maintained in federal court but, rather, must be maintained in the Court of Claims, with all the attendant unusual and specific requirements applicable in that forum.

The reason for this differentiation stems from the Supreme Court decision in Alden v. Maine.¹⁶⁴⁰ In that case, probation officers filed suit against the State of Maine in federal court, alleging a violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida,¹⁶⁴¹ the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, suit on the same grounds was commenced in state court. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of sovereign immunity,¹⁶⁴² and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed.¹⁶⁴³ After a review of the historical and constitutional context, the Court held that the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages in state courts. The Court also held that Maine had not consented to suits for overtime pay and liquidated damages under the FLSA.¹⁶⁴⁴

Subsequently, in Alston v. State,¹⁶⁴⁵ the New York Court of Appeals held that the State of New York waived its sovereign immunity to suits under the FLSA only to the extent that a claimant complied with the limitations and provisions set forth in the Court of Claims Act. There, State parole officers had filed a claim in the Court of Claims but not within six months after accrual as required by Court of Claims Act § 10(4). Because they did not file within the six months, or timely seek relief under Court of Claims Act § 10(6), their claims were dismissed.

Likewise, the Court of Appeals ruled in Lepkowski v. State¹⁶⁴⁶ that failure to comply with the substantive pleading requirements contained in the Court of Claims Act will result in the dismissal of an...