MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Steven Nunez brings this action for unpaid overtime and retaliation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), against Metropolitan Learning Institute and Boris Davidoff. The defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion is denied. I. For purposes of this motion, the Court must take as true all the allegations of the complaint and must draw all inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Weixel v. Board of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir. 2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,” but “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The factual allegations must “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 (emphasis added). II. Discussion The plaintiff was terminated by the defendants in January 2018. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 22, 2018 for unpaid overtime wages. The defendants subsequently sued the plaintiff in state court on August 8, 2018 for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and defamation. On October 1, 2018, plaintiff amended his complaint to add retaliation claims citing the defendants’ state lawsuit. In order to state a claim for retaliation, the plaintiff must establish: “(1) participation in protected activity known to the defendant, like the filing of a FLSA lawsuit; (2) an employment action disadvantaging the plaintiff; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 53 (2d Cir. 2010). The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, a protected activity, of which the defendants are aware. See Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 628 F.Supp.2d 447, 472 n.20 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). III. Adverse Employment Action The alleged adverse employment action here is the defendants’ state lawsuit. An adverse employment action is one that may “dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). Courts have held that the filing of a baseless lawsuit can be an adverse action. See Romero v. Bestcare, Inc., No. 15-cv-7397(JS)(GRB), 2018 WL 1702001, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018) (citing cases). In Romero, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s sole purpose for filing a counterclaim was to retaliate against the plaintiff. Id. at *6. The Court found that allegation to be sufficient at the pleadings stage to show the “[c]ounterclaim is baseless or would not have been pursued absent a retaliatory motive.” Id.1 Similar to the Romero plaintiff, the plaintiff here alleged that the state lawsuit was filed for “leverage” and was “designed to punish Nunez for engaging in [a] protected activity.” (Complt.
