In Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion clarifying the pleading requirements for a plaintiff in an FLSA wage & hour action and providing guidance on establishing employee status under the FLSA.

Ramona Dejesus sued her employer in district court under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) claiming she was a non-exempt employee who was not provided adequate compensation for the overtime she worked. The district court granted her employer's motion to dismiss, ruling that Dejesus failed to approximate the number of hours worked necessary to effectuate her overtime claim, and that she did not sufficiently allege enough facts to indicate she was an employee within the meaning of the FLSA. The district court dismissed Dejesus' claim without prejudice, providing her opportunity to amend her complaint and replead. Instead of amending her complaint with the district court, Dejesus filed a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling to dismiss. In doing so, thstlawe Circuit Court agreed that Dejesus had failed to plead enough facts to properly allege an overtime wage violation under the FLSA because Dejesus failed to sufficiently allege working more than 40 hours of work in a given workweek as required by recent precedent (see Lundy v. Catholic Health System, 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013); Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System Inc., No. 11-0734, , (2d Cir. 2013)). In doing so, it clarified that a plaintiff must do more than simply allege that she worked more than 40 hours in any workweek, essentially parroting the requirement of the statute, to state an overtime claim. Instead, for an FLSA overtime claim to be plausible and plead correctly, the plaintiff must allege particular facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. As the court noted, "whatever the precise level of specificity that was required of the complaint, Dejesus at least was required to do more than repeat the language of the statute."

Although it was not necessary to reach the issue, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court that Dejesus did not plead enough facts to properly allege her status as an employee. The Second Circuit found Dejesus' pleadings satisfied the "striking breadth" of the FLSA's definition of employee by:

The Second Circuit found these allegations complied with the broad definition of employee, and the Circuit's history of treating employment for FLSA purposes as a flexible concept.

This decision represents a victory for employers in that it makes clear that more is required to state an FLSA overtime claim than threadbare allegations mirroring the statute's language. On the other hand, it reminds employers that the definition of employee under the FLSA is very flexible, and that employers will have difficulty escaping FLSA overtime claims by attempting to argue employee status.