Michael v. Bloomberg, L.P.

Filing 308

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: On September 21, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion (September 21 Opinion) granting the plaintiffs motion to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection with the claim brought by Bloombergs New York-base d Analytics Representatives for a violation of New York Labor Law § 650 et seq. (NYLL). On August 19, 2016, the plaintiffs also moved to certify the following California class: all representatives in the Analytics Department in California who w ere not paid time and one-half for hours over 40 worked in one or more weeks or hours over 8 worked in one or more days at any time within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter. It is und isputed that over 100 current and former Bloomberg employees are putative members of this California class. For the reasons that follow, and for the reasons set forth in the September 21 Opinion, the plaintiffs motion is granted.... (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/25/2017) (gr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
:
ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN, ALEXANDER LEE,
:
and WILLIAM VAN VLEET, individually and:
on behalf of others similarly situated,:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
BLOOMBERG L.P.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------- X

14cv2657 (DLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On September 21, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion
(“September 21 Opinion”) granting the plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection
with the claim brought by Bloomberg’s New York-based Analytics
Representatives for a violation of New York Labor Law § 650 et
seq. (“NYLL”).

On August 19, 2016, the plaintiffs also moved to

certify the following California class: “all representatives in
the Analytics Department in California who were not paid time
and one-half for hours over 40 worked in one or more weeks or
hours over 8 worked in one or more days at any time within the
four years preceding the filing of this Complaint and the date
of final judgment in this matter.”

It is undisputed that over

100 current and former Bloomberg employees are putative members
of this California class.

For the reasons that follow, and for

the reasons set forth in the September 21 Opinion, the
plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
Like the NYLL, the California Labor Code (“CLC”) requires
payment of overtime wages and includes exemptions to those
overtime pay requirements.

8 Cal. Code Regs.

§ 11040(1)(A).

Bloomberg argues that the “administrative” exemption applies to
the California-based Analytics Representatives.

This is the

core question that must be resolved for the California class.
At trial, Bloomberg will bear the burden of showing that the
elements of this exemption are satisfied.

Sav-on Drug Stores,

Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319, 338 (Cal. 2004).
Unlike the NYLL, the CLC exemptions do not precisely mirror
the criteria set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
The CLC defines, in pertinent part, an exempt “administrative”
employee as one:
(a) Whose duties and responsibilities involve . . .(I) The
performance of office or non-manual work directly related
to management policies or general business operations of
his/her employer or his employer's customers;
(c) Who regularly and directly assists a proprietor, or an
employee employed in a bona fide executive or
administrative capacity (as such terms are defined for
purposes of this section); or
(d) Who performs under only general supervision work along
specialized or technical lines requiring special training,
experience, or knowledge; or
(e) Who executes under only general supervision special
assignments and tasks; and
(f) Who is primarily engaged in duties that meet the test
of the exemption.
8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11040(1)(A)(2)(emphasis supplied).
2

The term

“primarily” is defined to mean “more than one-half of the
employee’s worktime.”

Combs v. Skyriver Comms., Inc., 159 Cal.

App. 4th 1242, 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
While the CLC does set out its own definition of the
exemption, it also requires the exemption to be construed in
accordance with the relevant FLSA regulations.

Subsection (f)

provides that “activities constituting exempt work and nonexempt work shall be construed in the same manner as such terms
are construed in the following regulations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act effective as of the date of this order.”
Code. Regs. § 11040(1)(A)(2)(f)(emphasis suppled).

8 Cal.

Moreover,

the definition of the administrative exemption provided in the
CLC “closely parallels the federal regulatory definition of the
same exemption.”

Combs, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 1255.

California's the administrative employee exemption is, however
“somewhat different.”

Nordquist v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting

Co., 32 Cal. App. 4th 555, 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

Finally,

the exemption is “narrowly construed against the employer” and
its application is limited to those employees “plainly and
unmistakably” within its terms.

Id.

Despite the differences between the NYLL and the CLC, the
same analysis that justifies certifying the New York class
compels certification of a California class.

As described in

the September 21 Opinion, “plaintiffs have shown that the issues
3

pertinent to Bloomberg’s affirmative defense can be resolved
through common proof at trial, and that those issues will far
outweigh any individualized determinations that must be made.”
Bloomberg makes no arguments unique to California law, and the
CLC does not require anything beyond the analysis in the Opinion
granting certification of the New York class in order to certify
the California class.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ August 19,

2016 motion for certification of a California class for
Analytics Representatives is granted.
Dated:

New York, New York
September 25, 2017
__________________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge

4