Employee Survival Guide®

S6 Ep.134: Unpaid Overtime: The NYU Langone IT Staff Battle

• Mark Carey • Season 6 • Episode 36

Share episode

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!

What happens when the line between your work and personal life blurs beyond recognition? Five IT professionals at NYU Langone Health System are taking a stand in a legal battle that resonates with countless workers who've found themselves checking emails after hours or staying late without additional compensation.

The case centers on a fundamental question: when should technical support professionals receive overtime pay? The plaintiffs—specialists with titles like System Analyst and Desktop Support Technician—claim they routinely worked 42-55 hours weekly without overtime compensation because NYU Langone incorrectly classified them as exempt employees. They argue their primary duties involved routine troubleshooting, ticket management, and technical assistance that lacked the independent judgment typically required for overtime exemption, despite their professional-sounding titles.

NYU Langone's vigorous defense includes challenging whether they even fall under federal wage law jurisdiction while simultaneously claiming the employees properly qualified for various exemptions. This highlights how contested the boundaries have become between exempt and non-exempt work in our digital age. Recently, the court conditionally certified a collective action, allowing other similarly situated IT support staff to join the lawsuit—a significant milestone, though not the final word.

The implications reach far beyond healthcare IT departments. As technology transforms workplace expectations and responsibilities, many professionals find themselves wondering if their classification accurately reflects their actual duties. This case may help clarify where modern labor law draws the line between work deserving overtime pay and genuinely exempt professional roles. Whether you're questioning your own classification or seeking to understand evolving employment rights, this legal battle offers valuable insights into the changing nature of work and compensation in today's increasingly connected world. Ready to examine your own work arrangement more closely?

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Speaker 1:

Have you ever found yourself working late, maybe pushing through extra hours, checking emails when you, you know shouldn't be, and then just kind of wondering am I actually getting paid for all this extra time?

Speaker 2:

It's a really common feeling, I think. Especially these days right, the line between work and well, not work seems blurrier than ever.

Speaker 1:

Exactly Well, today we're doing a deep dive into a really fascinating legal case that brings that exact question right to the forefront.

Speaker 2:

Ah, the NYU Langone case with their IT staff.

Speaker 1:

That's the one. It involves IT professionals and this major health care system, nyu Langone, and it really gets into the weeds of wage laws, how employees are classified and what it actually means to be exempt from overtime pay.

Speaker 2:

Right that exempt classification is often the core issue in these kinds of disputes.

Speaker 1:

Definitely so. For this deep dive, we've sifted through the key documents. We've got the original complaint the employees filed NYU, langone's detailed response and, crucially, a recent court order that tells us where things are heading. Our mission really is to unpack all of this, pull out the important bits, make sense of the arguments, the legal stuff and what it might mean more broadly, you know, for anyone in a professional role.

Speaker 2:

Sounds good, let's break it down.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so let's start with the complaint itself. Who are the people bringing this suit?

Speaker 2:

Right. So there are five named plaintiffs leading the charge. Initially, their names are Clinton Barkley, Rashaun Bowery, Andrew Hancock, Philip Ramirez and Gurkarat Singh.

Speaker 1:

And what kind of jobs did they have at NYU Lango?

Speaker 2:

They held a range of IT support roles. Titles like system analyst, desktop support tech, one tech, two, av support, specialist solutions analyst, site analyst, even senior solutions analyst and senior technician. So quite a variety, but all seemingly within that IT support function.

Speaker 1:

You sound like pretty essential roles in any big organization.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. And NYU Langone itself is well, it's huge. It's described as a privately owned academic medical center and health system. Over 300 locations nationwide New York, new Jersey, nevada, florida. It's not a small operation.

Speaker 1:

Right, so the scale is significant. What's the main thing they're alleging?

Speaker 2:

The core allegation is pretty straightforward. They claim NYU Langone routinely required them to work more than 40 hours a week.

Speaker 1:

OK.

Speaker 2:

Things like coming in early, staying late, working through lunch weekends, being on call, all the usual ways. Extra hours pile up, but and this is the key they allege they weren't paid overtime for it.

Speaker 1:

And they have specifics, not just a general claim.

Speaker 2:

Oh yeah, the complaint gives examples like Mr Barkley apparently worked about 42 hours most weeks, citing one week in August 2022. Mr Bowery around 46 hours, even hitting 47 back in May 2018. Wow, and Hancock, ramirez and Singh they were reportedly around 50 hours most weeks. Mr Ramirez even logged 55 hours one week in March 2023, according to the filing.

Speaker 1:

So these aren't just occasional long weeks. They're arguing it was standard practice.

Speaker 2:

That's the claim. Yeah, a pattern of unpaid overtime.

Speaker 1:

Which brings us to that exempt question you mentioned. This seems to be the real heart of it Exactly.

Speaker 2:

The central claim is that NYU Langone misclassified them. They labeled these IT support employees as exempt from federal and state overtime laws, but the plaintiffs argue that was wrong.

Speaker 1:

So maybe just quickly what does exempt actually mean in this context?

Speaker 2:

Sure. So under wage laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA, certain types of employees aren't automatically entitled to overtime pay. Usually these are roles classified as executive, administrative professional or certain computer professional jobs, but to qualify they typically need to meet specific tests related to their job duties duties that involve significant discretion and independent judgment and meet a minimum salary level.

Speaker 1:

Got it. So the plaintiffs are saying their jobs didn't meet those tests.

Speaker 2:

Precisely. They argue. Their main duties were things like providing IT support, on-site and remote troubleshooting, hardware and software issues, handling IT tickets, installing things Basically, the hands-on support work. They claim this work was largely routine, followed set protocols and didn't involve the level of independent discretion or judgment required to be properly classified as exempt. Therefore, they argue, they should have been paid overtime.

Speaker 1:

That makes sense. It's about the nature of the work, not just the title.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. It's a classic battleground. Where does technical skill cross the line into the kind of independent judgment the exemption laws envision? Is it high level design and strategy, or is it more about following procedures, even complex ones?

Speaker 1:

And they're also saying NYU Langone knew this was wrong.

Speaker 2:

Yes, they alleged the violations were willful wrong. Yes, they allege the violations were willful. That means, they argue, nyu Langone knew, or should have known, that it was violating the FLSA and the New York Labor Law, nyll. What does willful add? Well, legally it's significant. If proven, it can extend the time period for which employees can recover back pay, typically from two years to three years under the FLSA. It also suggests a higher degree of fault.

Speaker 1:

And they claim NYU Langone wasn't keeping proper records either.

Speaker 2:

Right. They allege NYU Langone failed to accurately record their time and maintain payroll records properly, potentially to hide these overtime hours. That ties into the willfulness claim.

Speaker 1:

OK, so that's a pretty detailed picture from the plaintiff's side. Let's switch gears. How did NYU Langone respond to all this?

Speaker 2:

Well, as you'd expect from a large institution, they mounted a strong defense. Their official answer included what are called general denials, Meaning Essentially they argue that many of the plaintiff's points are legal conclusions, not factual allegations requiring a direct admission or denial, and overall they deny violating any laws or doing anything wrong. It's a way of pushing back broadly.

Speaker 1:

But did they admit anything?

Speaker 2:

They did make some specific admissions. They acknowledged that the named plaintiffs were employed by them, either NYU Langone Health System or an entity called NYU Langone MSO Inc. During certain periods. They also confirmed their main business address.

Speaker 1:

OK, basic facts.

Speaker 2:

Right Lingo and MSO Inc. During certain periods. They also confirmed their main business address. Ok, basic facts Right, but interestingly they denied being not for profit. The complaint actually used nonprofit a slight difference, but they denied it. And, crucially, they denied operating an enterprise engaged in commerce under the FLSA's definition and denied meeting the $500,000 annual business volume threshold for FLSA coverage.

Speaker 1:

Wait denying they fall under the FLSA at all. That seems like a big deal.

Speaker 2:

It is. If they could successfully argue the FLSA doesn't apply to them, the whole federal overtime claim could potentially collapse. It's a fundamental challenge to the court's jurisdiction over that part of the case.

Speaker 1:

Wow, ok, and beyond denials, they listed defenses. You mentioned something like 38.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, 30 affirmative and other defenses, which is A lot. An affirmative defense is basically an argument that says, even if what the plaintiff claims is true, we still win. Because of this other reason.

Speaker 1:

So what kind of reasons? Are we talking about? Any standouts in that list of 38?

Speaker 2:

Oh, definitely. Some are pretty standard, like arguing the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim or that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. They mention both the two year and three year limits covering their bases. They mention both the two year and three year limits covering their bases, right. They also argue the plaintiffs weren't actually employees during the relevant times or that they did receive all the weight as they were due. They challenge the damages sought as excessive. Ok list the executive, administrative, professional and computer professional exemptions and even the highly compensated employee exemption.

Speaker 1:

So a direct contradiction to the plaintiff's main point.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely, and they also throw in defenses like waiver release, estoppel, essentially arguing the plaintiffs gave up their right to sue or are legally prevented from doing so for some reason. It's a very comprehensive, multi-pronged defense strategy.

Speaker 1:

It really shows how complex these cases can get. Both sides seem convinced they're right, based on their interpretation of the rules and the law.

Speaker 2:

That's exactly it. It hinges on the specific facts of the jobs and how they fit into the legal tests for exemption.

Speaker 1:

Now there was also something specific to the New York plaintiffs about wage notices.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that's right. For the New York plaintiffs Berkeley, bowery and Singh, the complaint added claims under the New York labor law.

Speaker 1:

What were those about?

Speaker 2:

Two main things Failure to provide proper wage notices when they were hired. These notices are supposed to detail pay rates, payday info, employer details, etc. And second, failure to provide accurate wage statements with each paycheck, which should show dates, worked hours, including overtime hours, gross pay deductions, net pay.

Speaker 1:

So paperwork requirements under state law and NYU Langone's response.

Speaker 2:

Similar to the other claims generally denied. They stated they lacked sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of those specific allegations Standard legal phrasing for a denial in this context.

Speaker 1:

OK, so we have the complaint, the detailed defense, right. Where does this leave us now? You mentioned a recent court order. That sounds important.

Speaker 2:

It's very important. This was a decision dated May 19th 2025. And the big news is that the court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action Conditional certification. What does that mean practically? But unlike a typical class action which applies to the New York state claims here, where people are usually in unless they opt out for an FLSA collective action, employees have to actively opt in. They have to choose to join the lawsuit.

Speaker 1:

So conditional certification, is the court saying OK, we'll allow others to potentially join?

Speaker 2:

Exactly. The court found that the plaintiffs had made what's called a modest factual showing. The plaintiffs had made what's called a modest factual showing Basically enough initial evidence to suggest that they and other potential opt-in plaintiffs might have been victims of a common policy or plan by NYU Langone that violated the FLSA, specifically the alleged misclassification and failure to pay overtime.

Speaker 1:

What was the court's reasoning based on?

Speaker 2:

They noted that, even though the plaintiffs had different job titles, they described similar primary job duties within NYU Langone's IT division, the MCIT division. They also pointed out that these employees interacted, they talked about work and they observed colleagues also working overtime, apparently without extra pay. This shared experience was key.

Speaker 1:

Interesting Did NYU Langone try to argue against certification. Interesting Did NYU Langone try to argue against certification.

Speaker 2:

Oh, absolutely. They argued the proposed group was too broad, mentioning potentially hundreds of employees or 250 unique titles. They suggested the roles were too different, but the court didn't on nailing down every single job description. It's about whether there's evidence of a common wage in our practice affecting a group of employees. They also dismissed NYU's concern that the definition might accidentally sweep in managers, emphasizing that the collective was defined by providing technological support which helps distinguish it.

Speaker 1:

So how did the court define this collective group then?

Speaker 2:

The official definition is all persons who work or have worked for NYU Langone as exempt classified IT support employees, defined as analysts, tech specialists and those with similar job titles within the Medical Center Information Technology Division providing technological support to NYU Langone operations at any time since December 18th 2021, and who elect to opt into this action.

Speaker 1:

That's quite specific Analysts, techs, specialists, similar titles in the MCIT division doing tech support, classified exempt since late 2021.

Speaker 2:

Yes, it narrows the field but still potentially covers a significant number of people.

Speaker 1:

So what happens now that it's conditionally certified? How do these other potential plaintiffs find out?

Speaker 2:

The court approved a notice plan. The plaintiff's lawyers will send out notices to everyone who fits that definition.

Speaker 1:

How will they send them?

Speaker 2:

Multiple ways regular mail, email, text message and they'll set up a case-specific website with information. The goal is to reach as many potential members as possible. There will also be a reminder notice sent out later.

Speaker 1:

And what will the notice tell people?

Speaker 2:

It will explain the lawsuit that it's about alleged unpaid overtime for exempt classified IT support staff in the MCIT division. It will explain their right to opt in to join the suit.

Speaker 1:

Anything else potential members should know.

Speaker 2:

Yes, Importantly, the notice will also state that if they do join, they might have to provide information you know, documents or testimony to NYU Langone's lawyers or the court as part of the legal process.

Speaker 1:

Oh, it's a commitment.

Speaker 2:

It is, and they'll have a set time frame to decide 60 days from when the notice is first mailed.

Speaker 1:

How will the plaintiffs know who to send the notice to?

Speaker 2:

The court ordered NYU Langone to provide the plaintiff's lawyers with a list Names, last known addresses, personal email addresses, personal phone numbers, employee IDs basically the contact info for everyone potentially in the collective. They have a deadline of June 9, 2025 to provide that data.

Speaker 1:

That's comprehensive. And what about the statute of limitations you mentioned earlier?

Speaker 2:

The court confirmed that, based on the current allegations of willful misconduct, a three-year statute of limitations applies to the FLSA claims. That means people who worked there within the three years prior to opting in could potentially be included.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so this conditional certification seems like a big win for the plaintiff's side, allowing the case to grow, but is it the final word on whether this proceeds as a group?

Speaker 2:

No, absolutely not, and that's a really crucial point. This is just conditional certification, stage one you could call it.

Speaker 1:

Stage one what's stage two?

Speaker 2:

Stage two comes after the opt-in period and after more discovery. That's the legal process where both sides gather much more detailed evidence. They'll likely depose some of the opt-in plaintiffs, get detailed records of their actual job duties, things like that. Then NYU Langone will almost certainly file a motion to decertify the collective. At that point the court takes a much closer, harder look. The standard is higher than the modest factual showing needed initially. The court will ask are these opt-in plaintiffs truly similarly situated based on the detailed evidence gathered?

Speaker 1:

And if the court decides they aren't?

Speaker 2:

If the court grants decertification, the collective action is dissolved. The original plaintiffs can still pursue their individual claims, and maybe some of the opt-ins could too, but they'd have to file separate lawsuits or proceed individually, which is much harder and more expensive. So conditional certification is a hurdle cleared, but the fight over keeping the group together is definitely still to come.

Speaker 1:

Right. So quite a journey still ahead in this case.

Speaker 2:

Definitely.

Speaker 1:

We've really unpacked a lot today. We've seen this group of IT professionals taking on a major institution over really fundamental wage rights, and we've seen the court give them the green light, at least for now, to pursue this as a collective action.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it highlights that critical, sometimes blurry line between exempt and non-exempt roles, especially in tech fields where duties can be complex, and it shows the detailed legal steps involved.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely yeah, and whether you're working in IT or you're a manager trying to classify roles correctly, or maybe you're just interested in employee rights, this case really underscores how vital it is to understand those classifications and the laws around pay. It's not just about titles.

Speaker 2:

No, it's about the actual day-to-day tasks and the level of independent judgment involved.

Speaker 1:

Which really makes you think. Technology keeps changing. Job roles evolve so fast. How well do our existing labor laws, some written decades ago, really fit the modern workforce, especially for roles like IT support that are just so big into everything organizations do now?

Speaker 2:

That's the big question, isn't it? And what's the true responsibility of an employer to get that classification right for every single person, especially when those lines are so blurred? Sometimes it's something that affects millions, and cases like this keep pushing those boundaries.