Mankin v. Hair Therapy for Women, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER: Hair Therapy for Women and Russell's Motion to Dismiss Complaint 12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/13/2015. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ASHLEY JORDAN MANKIN
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-CV-2071-T-33JSS

HAIR THERAPY FOR WOMEN, LLC,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants Hair
Therapy for Women, LLC and Bobbi Russell’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint filed on October 7, 2015 (Doc. # 12). Plaintiff
Ashley Jordan Mankin filed a response in opposition also on
October 7, 2015 (Doc. # 13). The cause is now ripe for review.
I.

Background
In her Complaint, Mankin brings one Count for failure to

pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207. (Doc. # 1 at 3). The Complaint
alleges that Hair Therapy for Women and Russell are employers
and a covered enterprise, as defined by the FLSA. (Id. at ¶¶
3-4).

The

Complaint

further

alleges

that

“Plaintiff

and

others similarly situated were employees of Defendants . . .”

1 

and

“Defendants

failed

to

comply

with

the

FLSA

because

Plaintiff, and other similarly situated hairdressers, were
regularly required to work in excess of forty (40) hours a
workweek but were not paid overtime compensation . . . .”
(Id. at ¶¶ 6-7). Furthermore, Hair Therapy for Women and
Russell allegedly failed to keep accurate time records as
required by the FLSA. (Id. at ¶ 9). These putative violations
allegedly occurred over a 3 year period preceding the filing
of this action. (Id. at ¶ 13).
II.

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) requires that

a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A party may
attack the sufficiency of a pleading under Rule 12(b)(6);
that is, a complaint may be attacked——and dismissed——for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court applies
the plausibility standard as articulated in Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009). In short, “[t]o survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted

as

true,

to

‘state

a

claim

to

relief

that

is

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The Court

2 

further expounded that “[a] claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
In applying the Twombly-Iqbal standard to FLSA claims,
the Eleventh Circuit has noted that “the requirements to state
a claim of a FLSA violation are quite straightforward.” Sec’y
of Labor v. Labbe, 319 Fed. Appx. 761, 763 (11th Cir. 2008).
“The elements that must be shown are simply a failure to pay
overtime

compensation

and/or

minimum

wages

to

covered

employees . . . .” Id.; see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods,
Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding complaint
alleging
employees

FLSA

violation

alleged

to

sufficient
have

worked

as

it

identified

overtime,

the

described

employer’s FLSA violations, and alleged the time frame in
which the violations occurred). District courts have applied
Labbe to mean that “where a complaint alleges that since a
certain

date,

the

defendant

repeatedly

violated

stated

provisions of the FLSA by failing to compensate employees in
excess of forty hours a week at the appropriate rates the
requisite pleading standard is satisfied.” Houston v. JT
Private Duty Home Care, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-245-FtM-38DNF, 2014

3 

WL 4854528, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted).
In

addition,

“[t]here

is

no

requirement

that

the

Plaintiff explicitly state the amount of damage, but only
that the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours a week and
was not paid overtime wages.” Ramos v. Aventura Limousine &
Transp. Serv., Inc., No. 12-21693-CIV, 2012 WL 3834962 at *2
(S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2012); see also Dobbins v. Scriptfleet,
Inc., No. 8:11-cv-1923-T-24AEP, 2012 WL 601145 at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 23, 2012) (rejecting argument that a plaintiff must
plead

an

estimate

of

the

amount

of

uncompensated

hours

worked).
III. Analysis
Hair

Therapy

for

Women

and

Russell

argue

that

the

Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations
regarding how they are a covered enterprise and how Mankin is
a covered individual. (Doc. # 12 at ¶¶ 5-9). In addition,
Hair Therapy for Women and Russell argue that the Complaint
fails to state a cause of action because it does not allege
any facts regarding Mankin’s damages (e.g., the amount of
back wages allegedly due), as well as the fact that no dates
of employment are alleged. (Id. at 10-11). For her part,
Mankin contends that the Complaint meets the Labbe standard.

4 

A review of the Complaint shows that the Complaint, to
be sure, is brief in its allegations. However, the Court finds
that the Complaint sufficiently pleads a claim under the FLSA.
As stated, “where a complaint alleges that since a certain
date, the defendant repeatedly violated stated provisions of
the FLSA by failing to compensate employees in excess of forty
hours a week at the appropriate rates the requisite pleading
standard is satisfied.” Houston, 2014 WL 4854528, at *4.
Furthermore, Mankin was not required to plead an estimate of
the back wages owed. Dobbins, 2012 WL 601145 at *3.
The

instant

Complaint

alleges

that

Mankin

was

an

employee of a covered enterprise, which for the past 3 years
failed to keep accurate time records and pay employees,
including

Mankin,

for

hours

worked

over

40

hours

in

a

workweek. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13). Such allegations
are sufficient under this Circuit’s precedent. Therefore,
Hair Therapy for Women and Russell’s Motion to Dismiss is
denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Hair Therapy for Women and Russell’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint (Doc. # 12) is DENIED.

5 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
13th day of October, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

6