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.
Episode Transcript
Have you ever found yourself working late, maybe
pushing through extra hours,checking emails when you, you
know shouldn't be, and then justkind of wondering am I actually
getting paid for all this extratime?
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It's a really common feeling, I think.
Especially these days right,the line between work and well,
not work seems blurrier thanever.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Exactly Well, today we're doing a deep dive into a
really fascinating legal casethat brings that exact question
right to the forefront.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Ah, the NYU Langone case with their IT staff.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
That's the one.
It involves IT professionalsand this major health care
system, nyu Langone, and itreally gets into the weeds of
wage laws, how employees areclassified and what it actually
means to be exempt from overtimepay.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Right that exempt classification is often the core
issue in these kinds ofdisputes.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Definitely so.
For this deep dive, we'vesifted through the key documents
.
We've got the originalcomplaint the employees filed
NYU, langone's detailed responseand, crucially, a recent court
order that tells us where thingsare heading.
Our mission really is to unpackall of this, pull out the
important bits, make sense ofthe arguments, the legal stuff
and what it might mean morebroadly, you know, for anyone in
(01:12):
a professional role.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Sounds good, let's break it down.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Okay, so let's start with the complaint itself.
Who are the people bringingthis suit?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Right.
So there are five namedplaintiffs leading the charge.
Initially, their names areClinton Barkley, Rashaun Bowery,
Andrew Hancock, Philip Ramirezand Gurkarat Singh.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
And what kind of jobs did they have at NYU Lango?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
They held a range of IT support roles.
Titles like system analyst,desktop support tech, one tech,
two, av support, specialistsolutions analyst, site analyst,
even senior solutions analystand senior technician.
So quite a variety, but allseemingly within that IT support
function.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
You sound like pretty essential roles in any big
organization.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Absolutely.
And NYU Langone itself is well,it's huge.
It's described as a privatelyowned academic medical center
and health system.
Over 300 locations nationwideNew York, new Jersey, nevada,
florida.
It's not a small operation.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Right, so the scale is significant.
What's the main thing they'realleging?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
The core allegation is pretty straightforward.
They claim NYU Langoneroutinely required them to work
more than 40 hours a week.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
OK.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Things like coming in early, staying late, working
through lunch weekends, being oncall, all the usual ways.
Extra hours pile up, but andthis is the key they allege they
weren't paid overtime for it.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
And they have specifics, not just a general
claim.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Oh yeah, the complaint gives examples like Mr
Barkley apparently worked about42 hours most weeks, citing one
week in August 2022.
Mr Bowery around 46 hours, evenhitting 47 back in May 2018.
Wow, and Hancock, ramirez andSingh they were reportedly
around 50 hours most weeks.
Mr Ramirez even logged 55 hoursone week in March 2023,
(02:57):
according to the filing.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
So these aren't just occasional long weeks.
They're arguing it was standardpractice.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
That's the claim.
Yeah, a pattern of unpaidovertime.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Which brings us to that exempt question you
mentioned.
This seems to be the real heartof it Exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
The central claim is that NYU Langone misclassified
them.
They labeled these IT supportemployees as exempt from federal
and state overtime laws, butthe plaintiffs argue that was
wrong.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So maybe just quickly what does exempt actually mean
in this context?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Sure.
So under wage laws like theFair Labor Standards Act or FLSA
, certain types of employeesaren't automatically entitled to
overtime pay.
Usually these are rolesclassified as executive,
administrative professional orcertain computer professional
jobs, but to qualify theytypically need to meet specific
tests related to their jobduties duties that involve
(03:45):
significant discretion andindependent judgment and meet a
minimum salary level.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Got it.
So the plaintiffs are sayingtheir jobs didn't meet those
tests.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Precisely.
They argue.
Their main duties were thingslike providing IT support,
on-site and remotetroubleshooting, hardware and
software issues, handling ITtickets, installing things
Basically, the hands-on supportwork.
They claim this work waslargely routine, followed set
protocols and didn't involve thelevel of independent discretion
(04:13):
or judgment required to beproperly classified as exempt.
Therefore, they argue, theyshould have been paid overtime.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
That makes sense.
It's about the nature of thework, not just the title.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Exactly.
It's a classic battleground.
Where does technical skillcross the line into the kind of
independent judgment theexemption laws envision?
Is it high level design andstrategy, or is it more about
following procedures, evencomplex ones?
Speaker 1 (04:37):
And they're also saying NYU Langone knew this was
wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Yes, they alleged the violations were willful wrong.
Yes, they allege the violationswere willful.
That means, they argue, nyuLangone knew, or should have
known, that it was violating theFLSA and the New York Labor Law
, nyll.
What does willful add?
Well, legally it's significant.
If proven, it can extend thetime period for which employees
can recover back pay, typicallyfrom two years to three years
(05:01):
under the FLSA.
It also suggests a higherdegree of fault.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
And they claim NYU Langone wasn't keeping proper
records either.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Right.
They allege NYU Langone failedto accurately record their time
and maintain payroll recordsproperly, potentially to hide
these overtime hours.
That ties into the willfulnessclaim.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
OK, so that's a pretty detailed picture from the
plaintiff's side.
Let's switch gears.
How did NYU Langone respond toall this?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Well, as you'd expect from a large institution, they
mounted a strong defense.
Their official answer includedwhat are called general denials,
Meaning Essentially they arguethat many of the plaintiff's
points are legal conclusions,not factual allegations
requiring a direct admission ordenial, and overall they deny
violating any laws or doinganything wrong.
It's a way of pushing backbroadly.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But did they admit anything?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
They did make some specific admissions.
They acknowledged that thenamed plaintiffs were employed
by them, either NYU LangoneHealth System or an entity
called NYU Langone MSO Inc.
During certain periods.
They also confirmed their mainbusiness address.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
OK, basic facts.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Right Lingo and MSO Inc.
During certain periods.
They also confirmed their mainbusiness address.
Ok, basic facts Right, butinterestingly they denied being
not for profit.
The complaint actually usednonprofit a slight difference,
but they denied it.
And, crucially, they deniedoperating an enterprise engaged
in commerce under the FLSA'sdefinition and denied meeting
the $500,000 annual businessvolume threshold for FLSA
(06:27):
coverage.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Wait denying they fall under the FLSA at all.
That seems like a big deal.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
It is.
If they could successfullyargue the FLSA doesn't apply to
them, the whole federal overtimeclaim could potentially
collapse.
It's a fundamental challenge tothe court's jurisdiction over
that part of the case.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Wow, ok, and beyond denials, they listed defenses.
You mentioned something like 38.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, 30 affirmative and other defenses, which is A
lot.
An affirmative defense isbasically an argument that says,
even if what the plaintiffclaims is true, we still win.
Because of this other reason.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So what kind of reasons?
Are we talking about?
Any standouts in that list of38?
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Oh, definitely.
Some are pretty standard, likearguing the complaint fails to
state a valid legal claim orthat the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations.
They mention both the two yearand three year limits covering
their bases.
They mention both the two yearand three year limits covering
(07:29):
their bases, right.
They also argue the plaintiffsweren't actually employees
during the relevant times orthat they did receive all the
weight as they were due.
They challenge the damagessought as excessive.
Ok list the executive,administrative, professional and
computer professionalexemptions and even the highly
compensated employee exemption.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
So a direct contradiction to the plaintiff's
main point.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Absolutely, and they also throw in defenses like
waiver release, estoppel,essentially arguing the
plaintiffs gave up their rightto sue or are legally prevented
from doing so for some reason.
It's a very comprehensive,multi-pronged defense strategy.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
It really shows how complex these cases can get.
Both sides seem convincedthey're right, based on their
interpretation of the rules andthe law.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
That's exactly it.
It hinges on the specific factsof the jobs and how they fit
into the legal tests forexemption.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Now there was also something specific to the New
York plaintiffs about wagenotices.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Yes, that's right.
For the New York plaintiffsBerkeley, bowery and Singh, the
complaint added claims under theNew York labor law.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What were those about ?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Two main things Failure to provide proper wage
notices when they were hired.
These notices are supposed todetail pay rates, payday info,
employer details, etc.
And second, failure to provideaccurate wage statements with
each paycheck, which should showdates, worked hours, including
overtime hours, gross paydeductions, net pay.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
So paperwork requirements under state law and
NYU Langone's response.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Similar to the other claims generally denied.
They stated they lackedsufficient knowledge or
information to form a beliefabout the truth of those
specific allegations Standardlegal phrasing for a denial in
this context.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
OK, so we have the complaint, the detailed defense,
right.
Where does this leave us now?
You mentioned a recent courtorder.
That sounds important.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
It's very important.
This was a decision dated May19th 2025.
And the big news is that thecourt conditionally certified an
FLSA collective actionConditional certification.
What does that mean practically?
But unlike a typical classaction which applies to the New
(09:33):
York state claims here, wherepeople are usually in unless
they opt out for an FLSAcollective action, employees
have to actively opt in.
They have to choose to join thelawsuit.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
So conditional certification, is the court
saying OK, we'll allow others topotentially join?
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Exactly.
The court found that theplaintiffs had made what's
called a modest factual showing.
The plaintiffs had made what'scalled a modest factual showing
Basically enough initialevidence to suggest that they
and other potential opt-inplaintiffs might have been
victims of a common policy orplan by NYU Langone that
violated the FLSA, specificallythe alleged misclassification
and failure to pay overtime.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
What was the court's reasoning based on?
Speaker 2 (10:09):
They noted that, even though the plaintiffs had
different job titles, theydescribed similar primary job
duties within NYU Langone's ITdivision, the MCIT division.
They also pointed out thatthese employees interacted, they
talked about work and theyobserved colleagues also working
overtime, apparently withoutextra pay.
This shared experience was key.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Interesting Did NYU Langone try to argue against
certification.
Interesting Did NYU Langone tryto argue against certification.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Oh, absolutely.
They argued the proposed groupwas too broad, mentioning
potentially hundreds ofemployees or 250 unique titles.
They suggested the roles weretoo different, but the court
(10:59):
didn't on nailing down everysingle job description.
It's about whether there'sevidence of a common wage in our
practice affecting a group ofemployees.
They also dismissed NYU'sconcern that the definition
might accidentally sweep inmanagers, emphasizing that the
collective was defined byproviding technological support
which helps distinguish it.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
So how did the court define this collective group
then?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
The official definition is all persons who
work or have worked for NYULangone as exempt classified IT
support employees, defined asanalysts, tech specialists and
those with similar job titleswithin the Medical Center
Information Technology Divisionproviding technological support
to NYU Langone operations at anytime since December 18th 2021,
(11:38):
and who elect to opt into thisaction.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
That's quite specific Analysts, techs, specialists,
similar titles in the MCITdivision doing tech support,
classified exempt since late2021.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yes, it narrows the field but still potentially
covers a significant number ofpeople.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
So what happens now that it's conditionally
certified?
How do these other potentialplaintiffs find out?
Speaker 2 (11:59):
The court approved a notice plan.
The plaintiff's lawyers willsend out notices to everyone who
fits that definition.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
How will they send them?
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Multiple ways regular mail, email, text message and
they'll set up a case-specificwebsite with information.
The goal is to reach as manypotential members as possible.
There will also be a remindernotice sent out later.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
And what will the notice tell people?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
It will explain the lawsuit that it's about alleged
unpaid overtime for exemptclassified IT support staff in
the MCIT division.
It will explain their right toopt in to join the suit.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Anything else potential members should know.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yes, Importantly, the notice will also state that if
they do join, they might have toprovide information you know,
documents or testimony to NYULangone's lawyers or the court
as part of the legal process.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Oh, it's a commitment .
Speaker 2 (12:45):
It is, and they'll have a set time frame to decide
60 days from when the notice isfirst mailed.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
How will the plaintiffs know who to send the
notice to?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
The court ordered NYU Langone to provide the
plaintiff's lawyers with a listNames, last known addresses,
personal email addresses,personal phone numbers, employee
IDs basically the contact infofor everyone potentially in the
collective.
They have a deadline of June 9,2025 to provide that data.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
That's comprehensive.
And what about the statute oflimitations you mentioned
earlier?
Speaker 2 (13:13):
The court confirmed that, based on the current
allegations of willfulmisconduct, a three-year statute
of limitations applies to theFLSA claims.
That means people who workedthere within the three years
prior to opting in couldpotentially be included.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Okay, so this conditional certification seems
like a big win for theplaintiff's side, allowing the
case to grow, but is it thefinal word on whether this
proceeds as a group?
Speaker 2 (13:38):
No, absolutely not, and that's a really crucial
point.
This is just conditionalcertification, stage one you
could call it.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Stage one what's stage two?
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Stage two comes after the opt-in period and after
more discovery.
That's the legal process whereboth sides gather much more
detailed evidence.
They'll likely depose some ofthe opt-in plaintiffs, get
detailed records of their actualjob duties, things like that.
Then NYU Langone will almostcertainly file a motion to
decertify the collective.
At that point the court takes amuch closer, harder look.
(14:07):
The standard is higher than themodest factual showing needed
initially.
The court will ask are theseopt-in plaintiffs truly
similarly situated based on thedetailed evidence gathered?
Speaker 1 (14:19):
And if the court decides they aren't?
Speaker 2 (14:21):
If the court grants decertification, the collective
action is dissolved.
The original plaintiffs canstill pursue their individual
claims, and maybe some of theopt-ins could too, but they'd
have to file separate lawsuitsor proceed individually, which
is much harder and moreexpensive.
So conditional certification isa hurdle cleared, but the fight
over keeping the group togetheris definitely still to come.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Right.
So quite a journey still aheadin this case.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Definitely.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
We've really unpacked a lot today.
We've seen this group of ITprofessionals taking on a major
institution over reallyfundamental wage rights, and
we've seen the court give themthe green light, at least for
now, to pursue this as acollective action.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Yeah, it highlights that critical, sometimes blurry
line between exempt andnon-exempt roles, especially in
tech fields where duties can becomplex, and it shows the
detailed legal steps involved.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Absolutely yeah, and whether you're working in IT or
you're a manager trying toclassify roles correctly, or
maybe you're just interested inemployee rights, this case
really underscores how vital itis to understand those
classifications and the lawsaround pay.
It's not just about titles.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
No, it's about the actual day-to-day tasks and the
level of independent judgmentinvolved.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Which really makes you think.
Technology keeps changing.
Job roles evolve so fast.
How well do our existing laborlaws, some written decades ago,
really fit the modern workforce,especially for roles like IT
support that are just so biginto everything organizations do
now?
Speaker 2 (15:53):
That's the big question, isn't it?
And what's the trueresponsibility of an employer to
get that classification rightfor every single person,
especially when those lines areso blurred?
Sometimes it's something thataffects millions, and cases like
this keep pushing thoseboundaries.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.