Calderon v. Koneksa Health

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-07808
StatusUnknown

This text of Calderon v. Koneksa Health (Calderon v. Koneksa Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Calderon v. Koneksa Health, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANA CALDERON, Plaintiff, 22-CV-7808 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND KONESKA HEALTH, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging that Defendant Koneska Health discriminated against her in her employment. She also asserts a state law breach of contract claim. By order dated September 20, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those

facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff asserts that, in January 2021, she quit her job in Arizona to work for Koneska Health, which promised her a long term employment contract. However, she asserts that she was “unfairly hired by Koneska Health and entered into an unfair contract with discriminatory practices.” (ECF 1, at 7.) Plaintiff claims the following: Koneska discriminated against me because of my psy illness. They offered me a contractor role, instead of an employee role. They fired me while I was having a mental crisis and hospitalized. (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that the “misconduct of HR led to severe economic damages” and that she was unemployed for many months, which affected her overall health. (Id. at 8.) She seeks money damages. DISCUSSION A. Fair Labor Standards Act Plaintiff alleges that Koneska violated the FLSA. The FLSA seeks to eliminate “labor

conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). It does so, in part, by setting substantive wage, hour, and overtime standards. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1, 11 (2011). The FLSA imposes liability on any “employer” who violates the Act’s minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), (e)(2). The statute requires all employers to pay each of their employees “not less than” the prevailing minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). For a defendant to be held liable under the FLSA, a plaintiff must establish that she was the defendant’s employee. The FLSA defines “employer” as an entity “acting directly or

indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). An entity “employs” an individual under the FLSA if it “suffer[s] or permit[s]” that individual to work. 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has adopted an “economic realities” test to determine whether an individual was an employee entitled to the protections of the FLSA or, in the alternative, was an independent contractor. See, e.g., Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 66 (2d Cir. 2003); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1058 (2d Cir. 1988) (independent contractors are not covered by the FLSA). Generally, an employment relationship exists under the FLSA when the “economic reality” is such that the “alleged employer possessed the power to control the workers in question.” Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1984)).The factors considered include: “(1) the degree of control exercised by the employer over the workers, (2) the workers’ opportunity for profit or loss and their investment in

the business, (3) the degree of skill and independent initiative required to perform the work, (4) the permanence or duration of the working relationship, and (5) the extent to which the work is an integral part of the employer’s business.” Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 901, 912 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). It is unclear whether Koneska was Plaintiff’s employer for purposes of the FLSA. By Plaintiff’s own admission, Koneska hired her as a contractor rather than an employee. Further, even if Koneska could be considered Plaintiff’s employer, the facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest that Koneska violated the FSLA with respect to Plaintiff’s employment. In fact, Plaintiff does not mention her wages or allege that Koneska failed to pay her the required compensation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kinneary v. City of New York
601 F.3d 151 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
455 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
490 U.S. 730 (Supreme Court, 1989)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Louis Carter v. Dutchess Community College
735 F.2d 8 (Second Circuit, 1984)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Laurance A. Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers
192 F.3d 322 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Company Inc.
355 F.3d 61 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
685 F.3d 135 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Lauria v. Donahue
438 F. Supp. 2d 131 (E.D. New York, 2006)
Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc.
522 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Calderon v. Koneksa Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-v-koneksa-health-nysd-2023.