MEMORANDUM & ORDER Before the Court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for leave to amend the amended answer by defendant County of Nassau (“defendant” or “County”). Docket Entry (“DE”) 88. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein, and plaintiffs and defendant are given leave to replead. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Danielle Davidson, Susan Chodkowski, Gary Volpe, Matthew Sarter, Wendy Neal, Deborah Pedenzin, and Rosanna Lauro (collectively “plaintiffs”) commenced this putative collective and class action by filing a verified complaint on February 23, 2018. Compl., DE 1. The case was originally assigned to the Honorable Arthur D. Spatt. Defendant filed an answer on May 1, 2018, and an amended answer on May 18, 2018. DE 11, 18. On July 20, 2018, defendant moved to consolidate this case with Chodkowski v. County of Nassau, No. 16-CV-5770, which case was assigned to the Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein. DE 17. On September 18, 2018, Judge Spatt reassigned the case to Judge Feuerstein, but denied without prejudice the motion to consolidate this case with Chodkowski v. County of Nassau. Electronic Order dated Sept. 18, 2018. Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a collective action on November 8, 2018, and moved to certify a class action on December 3, 2018. DE 34, 41. On February 11, 2019, the case was transferred to the undersigned as U.S. Magistrate Judge upon the parties’ consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. DE 45. On June 6, 2019, the Court conditionally certified a collective action. Minute Order dated June 6, 2019; DE 80. On July 9, 2019, the motion to certify a class action was deemed withdrawn without prejudice to renewal at a later date. Electronic Order dated July 9, 2019. Several parties consented to joining the collective action. See DE 57-59, 62-68, 70-72, 73-79. On December 12, 2019, defendant filed the instant motion. DE 88. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs assert violations of the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1), and the New York State Equal Pay Act, New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §194, based upon allegations that the predominantly female Police Communication Operators and Police Communication Operator Supervisors (collectively “PCOs”) receive substantially less compensation than the predominantly male Fire Communication Technicians and Fire Communication Technician Supervisors (collectively “FCTs”) within the County’s Police Department. Compl.
2, 69-79.1 Plaintiffs are current and former PCOs within the County’s Police Department Compl. 2, 29. The duties of PCOs include “receiving telephone calls placed on the County’s 911 emergency system, deciding the appropriate response to each of the calls, and if necessary, dispatching the appropriate aid depending upon the gravity of the emergency situation.” Id. at 29. Plaintiff alleges that “presently approximately 200 [PCOs] employed by the County, over 90 percent of whom, are female.” Id. at 30. As to FCTs, plaintiffs allege that FCTs are “employed within the same facility and perform virtually identical duties for the County” as PCOs. Id. at
