Complaint & Answer with Matrix's Admissions Highlighted - Heckle v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc.

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Erica Heckle, Plaintiff,

Case No. 7:21-cv-1463

v.

Matrix Absence Management, Inc.,

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Erica Heckle (“Plaintiff”) files this Class Action Complaint against Matrix Absence Management, Inc. (“Defendant”), and in support states the following: Nature of the Lawsuit 1.

Defendant is a subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., which is a Japanese

Corporation listed on the Tokyo stock exchange.

2.

Defendant is a third-party administrator of disability and leave of absence claims.

3.

Defendant is a licensed third-party administrator in multiple states across the country.

4.

Defendant is not an insurance company.

5.

Defendant does not hold a license to write or sell insurance from any state in the

country.

6.

Defendant partners with its customers to administer and process disability and leave

of absence claims filed by insurance plan enrollees.

7.

As a third-party absence management administrator, Defendant’s core functions

include processing disability and leave of absence claims within contractual timeframes.

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 12

8.

Defendant employed Plaintiff and other non-management employees (“Claims

Examination Employees”) in New York to process disability and leave of absence claims in accordance with predetermined guidelines as part of Matrix’s claims handling process.

9.

Defendant employed Plaintiff and other Claims Examination Employees to process

disability and leave of absence claims under various job titles that include one of the following terms: “Claims Examiner” or “Absence Management Specialist.”

10.

Defendant pays Claims Examination Employees a salary.

11.

Defendant’s Claims Examination Employees regularly work, or worked, over 40 hours

per workweek.

12.

Defendant classifies Claims Examination Employees as exempt from state and federal

overtime laws and does not pay them overtime when they work over 40 hours in individual workweeks.

13.

Plaintiff and other Claims Examination Employees’ primary job duty consists of

reviewing employee disability and leave of absence claims against predetermined guidelines to determine benefit eligibility within contractual time frames (“Claims Review Work”).

14.

The Claims Review Work primarily performed by Plaintiff and other Claims

Examination Employees is non-exempt work.

15.

Because Plaintiff primarily performed non-exempt work, Defendant violated the Fair

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., by failing to pay her overtime when she worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks. Plaintiff’s consent to sue form is attached as Exhibit A. 16.

Plaintiff also brings class action claims under New York state law under the New York

Minimum Wage Act, Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 650 et seq., the New York Wage Payment Act, Labor Law § 190 et seq., and the supporting Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142 (collectively, “NYLL” or “New York Wage Law”).

2

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 12

17.

Plaintiff brings her NYLL law claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4)

for Defendant’s failure to pay her and other Claims Examination Employees employed in New York all earned overtime pay.

Jurisdiction and Venue 18.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s

FLSA claims arise under federal law. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

19.

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise out of the same facts as the FLSA claims.

20.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events forming

the basis of this suit occurred in this District.

The Parties 21.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Claims Examination Employee in this Judicial

District from November 2010 to November 2020.

22.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in New York.

23.

Defendant’s offices in New York are located in this judicial district at 7 Skyline Drive,

Suite 275, Hawthorne, NY 10532.

Factual Allegations 24.

Plaintiff worked as Claims Examination Employee for Defendant in New York from

approximately November 2010 to November 2020.

25.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff primarily performed Claims Review

26.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff did not hold a bachelor’s degree or

Work.

any other advanced degree in any field from a college or university.

3

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 12

27.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not include regularly

directing the work of two or more employees.

28.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff did not have the authority to hire,

fire, suspend or otherwise discipline any of Defendant’s other employees.

29.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s primary job duty was not

managing Defendant’s business or any subdivision of Defendant’s business.

30.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties were routine and rote

and did not include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

31.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff could not waive or deviate from

Defendant’s established policies or procedures in performing Claims Review Work without prior approval.

32.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not involve

developing or evaluating the business policies of Defendant or Defendant’s customers.

33.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not involve

formulating management policies for Defendant or Defendant’s customers.

34.

During her employment with Defendant, Defendant required Plaintiff to perform her

job duties in accordance with its corporate policies, procedures, guidelines, and guidelines embedded in Defendant’s computer software.

35.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not involve creating

or drafting the corporate policies, procedures, and guidelines pertaining to Claims Review Work.

36.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not involve

negotiating final settlements, or setting reserves for claims.

4

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 5 of 12

37.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not involve planning

the short-term or long-term business objectives of Defendant or Defendant’s customers.

38.

Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work over 40 hours in one or more

individual workweeks during the last three years.

39.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in one or

more individual workweeks during the last three (3) years.

40.

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly began her workday at 7:30

a.m. Monday through Friday. Plaintiff would then typically work until 5:30 or 6:00 pm. Plaintiff would then typically take a break at 5:30 or 6:00 pm for approximately one hour, and then return back to work until 10:30 to 11:00 pm. Plaintiff accordingly estimates that on a weekly basis, she typically worked approximately 13-14 hours of overtime between Monday and Friday during her employment with Defendant.

41.

Plaintiff additionally recalls working an average of approximately 4-6 hours per

weekend during her employment.

42.

Plaintiff did not take breaks for lunch and instead ate while performing Claims

Examination Work or other work for Defendant.

43.

For most workweeks during her employment, Plaintiff recalls regularly working at least

65 hours per workweek for Defendant.

44.

Specifically, Plaintiff recalls working at least 65 hours during the workweek of

November 10, 2020 to November 16, 2020.

45.

Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA

and NYLL. 46.

Defendant paid Plaintiff a salary.

5

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 6 of 12

47.

When Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks, Defendant did not pay

Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay.

48.

During her employment, Defendant never issued Plaintiff an accurate wage statement.

49.

Specifically, during her employment, Defendant did not list the number of hours

Plaintiff worked on her paystubs.

50.

During her employment, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendant as defined by the

FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

51.

During her employment, Defendant was Plaintiff’s “employer” as defined under the

FLSA in § 203(d).

52.

Defendant is an “enterprise” as defined by the FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1).

53.

Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for

commerce as defined by the FLSA in 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).

54.

Defendant has made more than $500,000 in sales made or business done in each of

the last three calendar years.

55.

During her employment, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendant as defined by the

NYLL § 196.1(b).

56.

During her employment, Defendant was Plaintiff’s “employer” as defined by in 12

N.Y.C.R.R. 142-2.14(a).

57.

Of Defendant’s employees who performed the same primary job duties as Plaintiff in

the last three years, Defendant classified some or all as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and paid them a salary.

58.

Of Defendant’s employees classified as exempt and who performed the same primary

duties as Plaintiff in the last three years, some or all worked over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.

6

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 7 of 12

59.

Defendant maintained one or more common job descriptions for Claims Examination

Employees.

New York Class Action Allegations 60.

Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. 23 of the following state law sub-class:

All individuals employed by Defendant in New York as Claims Examination Employees in the past six (6) years who were paid a salary and were classified as exempt from overtime (the “Class”).

61.

The Class has more than 40 members.

62.

As a result, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not practical.

63.

There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, including (1) whether the

Class primarily performed non-exempt work; (2) whether Defendant violated the NYLL by refusing to pay the Class overtime pay; and (3) the proper measure of damages if Defendant misclassified the Class as exempt from the overtime provisions of the NYLL. 64.

Plaintiff’s overtime claims are typical of those of the Class because they arise out of

Defendant’s uniform compensation practices.

65.

Defendant’s defenses to Plaintiff’s NYLL claims are typical of its defenses to those of

the Class because they are grounded in the same compensation practices.

66.

Plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because she is

asserting the same claims as the Class.

67.

Plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because she has no

interests adverse to the Class.

68.

Plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because she has

retained counsel experienced in class action employment litigation.

69.

The common questions of law and fact predominate over the variations which may

exist between members of the Class, if any.

7

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 8 of 12

70.

Plaintiff and the members of the Class on the one hand, and Defendant on the other,

have a commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedy sought, namely back wages, interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs.

71.

If individual actions were required to be brought by each member of the Class injured

or affected, it would necessarily result in a multiplicity of lawsuits, creating a hardship to the individuals and to this Court, as well as to the Defendant.

72.

Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this lawsuit and distribution of the common fund to which the Class is entitled.

73.

The books and records of Defendant are material to the Class’s claims because they

disclose the hours worked by each member of the Class and the rate of pay for that work.

COUNT I Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 74.

Plaintiff incorporates here the previous allegations of this Complaint.

75.

Although Plaintiff was classified as exempt by Defendant, Plaintiff was not exempt

from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. 76.

Plaintiff was suffered or permitted by Defendant to work, and did work, over 40 hours

in one or more individual workweeks.

77.

Defendant paid Plaintiff a salary and no overtime compensation.

78.

Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime to Plaintiff at one and one-

half times her regular rate of pay when she worked over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.

79.

Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times her regular rate for all time

worked over 40 hours in a workweek was willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendant as follows: A.

All unpaid overtime wages due to Plaintiff;

B.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 8

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 9 of 12

C.

Liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime compensation due;

D.

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit; and

E.

Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II Violation of New York Wage Law – Failure to Pay Overtime (Class Action)

80.

Plaintiff incorporates here the previous allegations of this Complaint.

81.

This count arises from Defendant’s violations of the New York Wage Law by failing

to pay overtime to Plaintiff and the Class when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks.

82.

Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime provisions of the New

York Wage Law. 83.

Defendant classified the Class as exempt from the overtime provisions of the New

York Wage Law. 84.

Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the New York Wage Law.

85.

The Class was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the New York Wage Law.

86.

Plaintiff and the Class were regularly suffered or permitted to work by Defendant, and

did work, over 40 hours in individual workweeks.

87.

Defendant violated the New York Wage Law by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class

overtime at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks.

88.

As a result, Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff and the Class in the amount of the

unpaid overtime compensation, together with interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in an amount to be determined at trial.

9

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 10 of 12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seek a judgment against Defendant as follows: A. All unpaid overtime wages due to Plaintiff and the Class; B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; C. Liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime compensation due; D. Appropriate equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief to remedy violations, including not necessarily limited to, an order enjoining Defendant from continuing its unlawful practices; E. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit; and F. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III Violation of the New York Labor Law – Failure to Provide Wage Statements (Class Action) 89.

Plaintiff incorporates here the previous allegations of this Complaint.

90.

Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class with accurate

statements of wages as required by New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL § 195, containing the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked if applicable; deductions; allowances, if any; and net wages. NYLL § 195(3).

91.

Because of Defendant’s violations of NYLL § 195(3), for each workweek that

Defendant failed to provide a proper wage statement from February 17, 2015 through the present, Plaintiff and members of the NYLL Class are each entitled to damages of $250 per workday that the

10

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 11 of 12

violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of $5,000 per Class Member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. NYLL § 198(1-d).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the NYLL Class, seeks the following relief: A.

Statutory damages, as provided for by NYLL § 198, for Defendant’s failure to provide accurate wage statements;

B.

Appropriate equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief to remedy violations, including but not necessarily limited to, an order enjoining Defendant from continuing its unlawful practices;

C.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

D.

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit; and

E.

Such other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Jury Demand Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: February 18, 2021

Respectfully submitted, /s/Hillary D. LeBeau_________ Molly A. Elkin* Hillary D. LeBeau MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 mae@mselaborlaw.com hdl@mselaborlaw.com

11

Case 7:21-cv-01463 Document 1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 12 of 12

JACK SIEGEL* Texas Bar No. 24070621 STACY THOMSEN* California Bar No. 274282 SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, Texas 75206 P: (214) 790-4454 jack@siegellawgroup.biz stacy@siegellawgroup.biz TRAVIS M. HEDGPETH* Texas Bar No. 24074386 THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 Facsimile: (281) 572-0728 travis@hedgpethlaw.com

*Application for Admission pro hac vice forthcoming

12

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x ERICA HECKLE, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., : : Defendant. : --------------------------------------------------------------- x

Case No. 7:21-cv-01463 (VB)

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT Defendant Matrix Absence Management, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Matrix”), by and through its attorneys, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., answers the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Erica Heckle (“Plaintiff” or “Heckle”) as follows: Nature of the Lawsuit 1.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2.

Matrix admits that it is a third-party administrator of disability and leave of

absence claims.

3.

Matrix admits that it is a licensed third-party administrator of disability and leave

of absence claims in multiple states in the United States of America.

4.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except admits that

it is a third-party administrator of disability and leave of absence claims.

7.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except admits that

it is a third-party administrator of disability and leave of absence claims.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 2 of 14

8.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, except admits

that (i) it employed Plaintiff in New York; and (ii) certain of its employees processed disability claims and requests for leaves of absences.

9.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, except admits

that it employed Plaintiff as a Senior AMS Claims Examiner in its Hawthorne, New York office.

10.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except admits

that certain of its employees are exempt from state and federal overtime laws.

13.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

14.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

15.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except admit that

Plaintiff purports to have attached her consent to sue form to the Complaint.

16.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except admits

that Plaintiff purports to bring claims under the New York Labor Law (the “NYLL”).

17.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admits

that Plaintiff purports to bring her NYLL claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4).

Jurisdiction and Venue 18.

The allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Matrix denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff purport to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 3 of 14

19.

The allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Matrix denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admits that this Court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under New York state law.

20.

The allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Matrix admits that venue is proper in this District.

The Parties 21.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, except admits that

it employed Plaintiff from November 2010 to November 2020.

22.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

23.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

Factual Allegations

24.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, except admits that

it employed Plaintiff in New York from approximately November 2010 to November 2020.

25.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, particularly with

respect to the term Claims Review Work.

26.

Matrix denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore leaves Plaintiff to her proof.

27.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

30.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 4 of 14

32.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint, except admits that

it expects its employees to adhere to its policies.

35.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

36.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

38.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, except admits that

Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks during the last three (3) years.

39.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

40.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

42.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

47.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and avers that

Plaintiff was (i) properly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL; and (ii) not owed or paid overtime at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay.

48.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 5 of 14

49.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint, and avers that

(i) Plaintiff was properly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL; and (ii) Matrix did not the list the number of hours Plaintiff worked on her paystubs.

50.

The allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Matrix admits that Plaintiff was an “employee” of Matrix within the meaning of the FLSA. 51.

The allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Matrix admits that it was Plaintiff’s “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA. 52.

The allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required.

53.

The allegations in paragraph 53 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required.

54.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55.

The allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Matrix admits that Plaintiff was an “employee” of Matrix within the meaning of the NYLL. 56.

The allegations in paragraph 56 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Matrix admits that it was Plaintiff’s “employer” within the meaning of 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 142-2.14(a).

57.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

58.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Complaint.

59.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 59 of the Complaint.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 6 of 14

New York Class Action Allegations 60.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 60 of the Complaint, except admits that

Plaintiff purports to seek class certification.

61.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

62.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

63.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

64.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint.

65.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 65 of the Complaint.

66.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Complaint.

67.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 67 of the Complaint.

68.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Complaint.

69.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 69 of the Complaint.

70.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint.

71.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint.

72.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint.

73.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 73 of the Complaint.

COUNT I Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

74.

In response to paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Matrix incorporates by reference its

responses to paragraphs 1 through 73 of the Complaint as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

75.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint.

76.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.

77.

Matrix admits that Plaintiff was (i) paid a salary; (ii) properly classified as exempt

from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL; and (iii) not owed or paid overtime.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 7 of 14

78.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint.

79.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint.

Matrix denies that Plaintiff or anyone whom they purport to represent is entitled to any relief requested in the “WHEREFORE” clause in Count I of the Complaint, or to any other relief.

COUNT II Violation of New York Wage Law – Failure to Pay Overtime (Class Action) 80.

In response to paragraph 80 of the Complaint, Matrix incorporates by reference its

responses to paragraphs 1 through 79 of the Complaint as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

81.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 81 of the Complaint.

82.

Matrix admits the allegations in paragraph 82 of the Complaint.

83.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 83 of the Complaint.

84.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 84 of the Complaint.

85.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 85 of the Complaint.

86.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 86 of the Complaint.

87.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 87 of the Complaint.

88.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 88 of the Complaint.

Matrix denies that Plaintiff or anyone whom they purport to represent is entitled to any relief requested in the “WHEREFORE” clause in Count II of the Complaint, or to any other relief.

COUNT III Violation of the New York Labor Law – Failure to Provide Wage Statements (Class Action) 89.

In response to paragraph 89 of the Complaint, Matrix incorporates by reference its

responses to paragraphs 1 through 88 of the Complaint as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

90.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 90 of the Complaint.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 8 of 14

91.

Matrix denies the allegations in paragraph 91 of the Complaint.

Matrix denies that Plaintiff or anyone whom they purport to represent is entitled to any relief requested in the “WHEREFORE” clause in Count III of the Complaint, or to any other relief.

Jury Demand Matrix admits that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

GENERAL DENIAL Matrix denies each and every allegation in the Complaint not specifically admitted herein.

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES At this time, Matrix asserts the following affirmative and other defenses to the Complaint.

FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE Plaintiff, and/or any putative plaintiffs and class members, are barred from asserting claims under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., to the extent the claim was not brought within the applicable two-year statute of limitations of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) because Matrix did not commit a willful violation of the FLSA. THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the provisions of Section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 260, including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 254, and New York Labor Laws, because any acts or omissions giving rise to this action were done in good faith and with reasonable grounds for believing the acts or omissions were not a violation of the FLSA or

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 9 of 14

NYLL and their implementing regulations, thus barring any claims for liquidated damages, back pay, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. This defense may also apply to the claims of some, or all, of the putative plaintiffs and class members.

FOURTH DEFENSE If any failure to pay Plaintiff overtime wages was unlawful, although such is not admitted, Matrix acted in good faith in conformity with, and in reliance on, an administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, administrative practice, and/or enforcement policy of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, and/or the Division of Labor Standards of the New York State Department of Labor.

FIFTH DEFENSE Without assuming the burden of proof, Matrix complied with written regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, and interpretations of the United States Department of Labor and/or the New York State Department of Labor, and all recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL. SIXTH DEFENSE Plaintiff has waived her rights, if any, to pursue the claims in the Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, by reason of their own acts, omissions, and course of conduct, including by releasing such claims in consideration for severance pay.

SEVENTH DEFENSE At all times, Matrix acted in conformity with interpretations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., made by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.

EIGHTH DEFENSE Claims for non-compensable time are barred by 29 U.S.C. § 254(a).

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 10 of 14

NINTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for non-compensable de minimis time and time that was not Plaintiff’s “principal activity” is barred.

TENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff lacks standing to recover on behalf of the purported class.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred for hours allegedly worked without Defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge.

TWELFTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are not properly the subject of a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because Plaintiff is not similarly situated to other employees.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff, and/or any putative plaintiff or class member, did not work more than forty (40) hours in any given work week and, therefore, Plaintiff and putative plaintiffs and class members are not entitled to overtime under § 207 of the FLSA or the NYLL. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE Any amounts properly excluded from the calculation of the regular rate of pay pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(e) must likewise be excluded from the calculation of any overtime rate of pay which may be found to be due Plaintiff and/or any allegedly similarly situated employees.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 11 of 14

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim that would support the award of compensatory or punitive damages against Matrix.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff lacks standing to be, and is not, an adequate representative of the putative plaintiffs and class members.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff and/or purported class or collective action members have failed to take reasonable, necessary, appropriate and feasible steps to mitigate their alleged damages, and to the extent of such failure to mitigate, Plaintiff and/or purported class members should be barred from recovering some or all of the alleged damages they seek.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE With respect to each and every allegation of the Complaint as they relate to the request for class certification, class certification is not appropriate because there is a lack of: (a)

numerosity;

(b)

commonality or community of interest;

(c)

typicality;

(d)

an ascertainable class;

(e)

adequate representation;

(f)

appropriateness of relief to the putative class as a whole;

(g)

predominance of common questions over questions affecting individual class members;

(h)

substantial benefit to the litigants and the court; and

(i)

superiority of a class action to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 12 of 14

NINETEENTH DEFENSE Matrix denies that Plaintiff, and any putative plaintiff and class member, have suffered any injury, or damage, whatsoever, and further denies it is liable to Plaintiff and/or to any purported class member for any of the injury or damage claimed or for any injury or damage whatsoever.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE The alleged causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by exemptions, exclusions, and credits in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 213, the NYLL, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE Plaintiff’s, and any putative plaintiff’s or class member’s, claim for unpaid wages are barred by the doctrine of payment, and Plaintiff, and all putative plaintiffs and class members, have received payment for all time allegedly worked, and therefore have been properly paid as required by law.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE The alleged causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because Matrix has, to the extent required, complied with any and all applicable statutes, regulations, and/or laws.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiff’s attempt to assert or support allegations based on alleged subsequent remedial measures are barred.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 13 of 14

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS In addition to the foregoing defenses, Matrix reserves the right to assert any and all additional legal and/or equitable defenses that may become apparent during the course of discovery and/or trial.

WHEREFORE, Matrix requests that the Court enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice; granting to Matrix its costs and attorneys’ fees; and granting to Matrix such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: April 12, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. By: /s/ Evan B. Citron Evan B. Citron 599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 212.492.2500 212.492.2501 (facsimile) evan.citron@ogletree.com Attorneys for Defendant Matrix Absence Management, Inc.

Case 7:21-cv-01463-VB Document 14 Filed 04/12/21 Page 14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 12, 2021, I served, via the CM/ECF system, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Matrix Absence Management, Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint upon all parties registered to receive electronic notice.

/s/ Evan B. Citron Evan B. Citron

46649556.3