DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Edwin Romero, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of a class of employees employed with subsidiary entities of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”): the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (“MABSTOA”) and the MTA Headquarters/MTA Information Technology (“MTAHQ” and together with MTA and MABSTOA, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C §201, et seq. (“FLSA”). They also allege violations of the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, Dkt. No. 1-2 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 13. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. BACKGROUND This case arises from Plaintiffs’ employment at MABSTOA and MTAHQ over various time periods. For the purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint. The Complaint alleges as follows. MABSTOA is a New York State public authority that was created in 1962 to take over two bankrupt private bus companies in the Bronx and Manhattan. Compl. 204. MTAHQ is a public benefit corporation that is alleged to be either a wholly owned subsidiary of the MTA or the name by which the MTA does business created to handle administrative functions of the MTA. Id. 205. MABSTOA and MTAHQ are two subsidiaries of MTA, a New York State authority created to coordinate transportation needs throughout the state. Id. 206. Plaintiffs worked in various positions for MABSTOA or MTAHQ including, but not limited to, Computer Specialist, Computer Associate, Telecom Associate, Assistant Budget Chief, Associate Staff Analyst, and Telecom Specialist. Id.
8-201. During various weeks in the three years prior to January 24, 2019,1 Plaintiffs were required to work in excess of forty hours per week, either by working more than eight hours in a given day during a five-day work week, or by working during the weekend or on a day scheduled as an off day. Id. 212. During the weeks that this occurred, Defendants paid Plaintiffs “straight time,” for all hours worked, instead of an overtime rate of one-and-a-half times their pay for the hours worked above forty per week. Id. 213. For example, during the weeks of November 26, 2016, December 3, 2016, November 12, 2016, and November 5, 2016, Plaintiff Romero was required to work twelve, eleven, twelve, and nine hours, respectively, above forty hours without overtime pay. Id. 214. Plaintiff Wellington was required to work more than forty hours during the weeks of January 31, 2016, February 6, 2016, May 7, 2016, and May 14, 2016 and was paid straight time for all hours worked. Id. 215. Plaintiffs also allege that they cannot determine precisely which weeks they worked overtime without overtime pay without access to the Defendants’ time records. Id. 216. Some plaintiffs began to receive payment at the proper overtime rate in 2017 or 2018 as a result of collective bargaining carried out by their union. Id. 225. The New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) is another subsidiary of MTA. Id. 1. Defendants MABSTOA and MTAHQ have employees who do substantially similar work and have the same or substantially similar titles to individuals employed by NYCTA. Id. 217.2 The employees assigned to MABSTOA or MTAHQ payroll have been paid a lower salary than NYCTA employees doing substantially the same work. Id. Defendants used “different minimum and maximum pay rates for employees doing exactly the same jobs in the same titles” depending on the MTA subsidiary to which they were assigned. Id. 218. For example, new employees have been: hired into MTAHQ, given the same responsibilities as NYCTA and MABSTOA employees, paid at the lower MABSTOA rate, and denied the right to participate in any pension plan. Id. Employees hired into NYCTA make about 5 percent more per year than similarly situated employees working for MABSTOA. Id. 219. Defendants have also moved employees from NYCTA payroll to MABSTOA or MTAHQ payroll (which would presumably have the effect of decreasing their pay rate) without changing the work assigned to the employee. Id. 220. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have willfully and in bad faith failed to pay overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). Id.
