Correa v. Gelhomecare, Inc. et al
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/4/2011. (ir)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-80003-CIV-MARRA
ELTON CORREA, and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GELHOMECARE, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
GRETEL M. LEWIS, individually,
and BALFORD E. LEWIS,
individually,
Defendants.
__________________________/
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or
Alternatively, For More Definite Statement [DE 7]. The Court has carefully considered
the motion and response, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. No reply
was submitted.
Background
Elton Correa (“Plaintiff” or “Correa”) filed this action seeking unpaid
minimum wages (Count I), unpaid wages (Count II), recovery of overtime
compensation (Count III), and declaratory relief (Count IV). Plaintiff worked for
Gelhomecare, Inc. (“Gelhomecare”), and Gretel M. Lewis, and Balford E. Lewis, who
owned and operated Gelhomecare (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl. ¶ 3. Correa
became employed with Defendants on or about October 9, 2010, as a “Home Health
Aide.” Id. The Complaint offers no description of Plaintiff’s job duties or
responsibilities as a Home Health Aide. Plaintiff seeks redress under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201- 219; Florida Statute § 448; and the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint
arguing that it sets forth no facts demonstrating entitlement to relief.
Discussion
The purpose of a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) is to test the
facial sufficiency of a complaint. The rule permits dismissal of a complaint that fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It should be read alongside Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Pursuant to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
factual allegations that are “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.” Although
a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
factual allegations, a plaintiff is still obligated to provide the “grounds” for his
entitlement to relief, and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” In re Chiquita Brands Intern., Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, – F. Supp. 2d –, 2011 WL 2163973, *6 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting
Twombley, 550 U.S at 555).
Page 2 of 6
Taking the facts as true, a court may grant a motion to dismiss only if no
construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action. Marshall Cty.
Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). A
well-pled complaint will survive a motion to dismiss “even if it strikes a savvy judge
that actual proof of these facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote
and unlikely.’” Twombley, 550 U.S at 556 (internal citation omitted).
Fair Labor Standards Act Claims
Plaintiff seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”)
for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages. Congress enacted the FLSA “in order
to eliminate ‘labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum
standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of
workers.’” Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925, 929 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting 29
U.S.C. §§ 202(a) & (b)). To those ends, 29 U.S.C. § 207 requires that employers pay
each of his employees a minimum wage and pay time and a half for those hours that
an employee works in excess of the standard forty hour work week. 29 U.S.C. §§
206(a)(1), 207(a)(1).
Section 213, however, lists a host of exemptions to the FLSA's minimum wage
and maximum hour requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)-(30). One such
exemption is for employees in domestic service who “provide companionship services
Page 3 of 6
for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves.”1
29 U.S.C. § 213(1)(15); Buckner v. Florida Habilitation Network, Inc., 489 F.3d 1151,
1153 (11th Cir. 2007). While Plaintiff alleges that he qualifies under the FLSA as a
Home Health Aide, he offers no description of his job duties or responsibilities.
Defendants assert that such an explanation or averment is necessary in light of the
exemptions to the FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements pertaining to
domestic service employees who provide companionship services. Alternatively,
Defendants argue that the title Home Health Aide is so vague and ambiguous that
they cannot adequately prepare a response to the Complaint and that a more definite
statement is required.
Generally, “the application of an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards
Act is a matter of affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of
1
Interpreting this exemption, the Department of Labor defined
companionship services as:
those services which provide fellowship, care, and protection for a
person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity,
cannot care for his or her own needs. Such services may include
household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person such as
meal preparation, bed making, washing of clothes, and other similar
services. They may also include the performance of general household
work: Provided, however, that such work is incidental, i.e., does not
exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.
C.F.R § 552.6. This exemption applies only where employees provide fellowship, care
and certain daily maintenance services for the aged or infirm with only an incidental
benefit to the household, i.e., not more than 20% of work may be allocated to the
general household.
Page 4 of 6
proof.” Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196-197 (1974). The Eleventh
Circuit instructs that FLSA exemptions are to be narrowly construed against the
employer and that the employer has the burden to show that an exemption applies.
Abel v. Southern Shuttle Services, Inc., 631 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2011) citing
Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, –– U.S. ––, 130 S.Ct. 2343 (2010); see also Rock v. Ray Anthony Intern., LLC,
380 Fed. Appx. 875, 877 (11th Cir. 2010); Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel
Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150, 1156 (11th Cir. 2008); Evans v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 131
F.3d 957, 965 (11th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Correa has alleged, among other things, that he is covered under
the Act, that Defendants did not compensate him at a rate equal to the federal
minimum wage requirement for work performed, and that no provision was made by
Defendants to properly pay him for hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a work
week. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 14, 19. Plaintiff has sufficiently put Defendants on notice of his
claims of unpaid minimum and overtime wages. It is up to Defendants to raise and
establish the affirmative defense of exemption. A plaintiff is not required to negate
an affirmative defense in his complaint. La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc., 358
F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004). As for Defendants’ purported confusion regarding the
“vague and ambiguous” title “Home Health Aide,” Defendants, being the employer,
are in just as good a position as Plaintiff to know what Plaintiff’s job duties and
responsibilities were. Moreover, to the extent Defendants do not presently have this
Page 5 of 6
information, they can obtain it through discovery. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively,
For More Definite Statement [DE 7] is DENIED in its entirety.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 4th day of August, 2011.
_________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
copies to:
All counsel of record
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?