MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff Taylor Link (“Link” or “plaintiff”) brought the present complaint alleging four claims under the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants Marshall Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Marshall Payroll Services, LLC (together “Marshall”), and Oasis Outsourcing Contract II, Inc. (“Oasis,” and collectively “defendants”) failed to provide accurate wage documentation, pay a proper minimum wage, and compensate employees for off-the-clock work. On September 16, 2021, Oasis moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) to dismiss Link’s claims against it in their entirety. To hear Oasis tell it, plaintiff’s amended complaint — the current operative pleading — failed to allege that it employed her within the meaning of the NYLL. That motion, having been fully briefed, will now be decided on the parties’ submissions and without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND From June 2017 to August 2017, Link worked as a bartender and waitress at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel in Binghamton, New York (the “hotel”).1 Dkt. 96 (“Compl.”), 6. For its part, Marshall owns the hotel, and a chain of others like it. Id. 22. Across those hotels, Marshall employs hundreds of workers who are sheltered by labor protections, including the NYLL. Id. Generally, Link complains that she and others like her have to work beyond their shifts to finish all the tasks expected of them. Compl. 36. However, plaintiff claims that she and her cohort would not be paid for that extra work. Id. She also alleges that when defendants first brought employees on board, they claimed an intention to pay their employees the minimum wage, rather than paying them a sub-minimum wage but allowing them to make up the difference through tips under the statutory “tip credit” scheme. Id. 39. In reality, though, she alleges that defendants would claim that tip credit nonetheless and pay their employees less than the minimum wage they had been promised. Id. Link further claims that defendants failed to provide their employees with accurate wage and hour statements in violation of the NYLL. Compl. 40. Those four allegations boil down to claimed violations of: (1) the requirement that employers provide accurate itemized wage statements under NYLL §195; (2) the obligation to compensate employees off-the-clock work under NYLL §663(1); (3) the applicable minimum wage under NYLL §652; and (4) the NYLL’s general recordkeeping requirements under §195. Plaintiff also alleges that there are a class of similarly situated other employees who could all bring the same claims, though she has not yet moved for class certification at this early stage of litigation. Although that preamble will suffice to explain Link’s allegations writ large, telling the whole story for the present motion practice also requires some delving into Oasis’s business model and how that related to plaintiff. To that point, on January 27, 2009, A-1 Contract Staffing II, LLC (“A-1″) entered into an agreement with defendant Marshall Payroll Services, LLC. Dkt. 99-5 (“Agreement”), p. 2.2 Functionally, that agreement split certain human resources and administrative responsibilities between Oasis and Marshall. Id. Under the terms of the agreement, A-1 would “maintain a right of direction and control over” Marshall employees and “retain authority to hire, terminate, discipline[,] and reassign” those employees. Agreement, II(C). A-1 would also pay the employees’ wages and collect their taxes. Id. Obviously enough, handling those payroll functions required that A-1 keep copies of Marshall’s employees’ pay period records. Id. IX(B). But from a day-to-day, conditions-of-employment perspective, Marshall would retain “direction and control” over their employees. Id. II(C). According to Link — and Oasis does not dispute this — Oasis assumed A-1′s obligations under the January 27, 2009 agreement in 2015. Compl. 24. Plaintiff alleges that her relationship with Oasis looked much like the one that that agreement contemplated. Specifically, she alleges that Oasis: (1) hired her; (2) processed her tax forms; (3) provided payroll services; (4) maintained her employee records; (5) processed her termination; and (6) cut her paycheck. Id.
13, 23, 25-27. In addition, plaintiff alleges that Oasis completed her onboarding and orientation process, provided human resources training, and processed her direct deposit.3 Id.
