Mohamed Alshami et al. v The State of New York, et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public-sector employment and wage-and-hour law involving security officers employed by City University of New York (CUNY) seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [federal wage-and-hour law governing overtime compensation].
The Court of Claims dismissed the FLSA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also denied claimants' motion for leave to file a late claim.
The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal order, denied the State's motion to dismiss, and reinstated the claim, but affirmed the denial of leave to file late claims.
The appellate court found that the claim satisfied Court of Claims Act § 11(b) [sets the substantive pleading requirements for claims against the State] because it identified each claimant's job, employment period, pay rates, alleged overtime violations, claimed damages, and attached timesheet charts showing weekly hours and overtime weeks. However, late-claim relief was unavailable because the State's waiver of immunity for FLSA suits is strictly conditioned on compliance with filing deadlines.
Background
The claimants were employed as security officers by CUNY and alleged that they were not paid the full overtime compensation owed to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Their claim set out each individual's position, length of employment, regular and overtime pay rates, the types of FLSA violations alleged, and the damages sought. They also attached timesheet charts showing hours worked each week during the relevant period, including which weeks involved overtime.
Lower Court Decision
In two June 2025 orders, the Court of Claims dismissed the filed claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it did not sufficiently satisfy Court of Claims Act § 11(b), and separately denied claimants' motion for permission to file late claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the dismissal was erroneous because the claim gave the State enough information to identify the allegedly unpaid overtime weeks and investigate the allegations without having to search out missing facts. The court therefore reversed the June 10, 2025 order, denied the motion to dismiss, and reinstated the claim. At the same time, it affirmed the June 9, 2025 order denying leave to file late claims, holding that claimants had not adequately justified failing to file within six months of the earliest violations in January 2022 or January 2023.
Legal Significance
The decision confirms that an FLSA claim against the State can satisfy Court of Claims Act § 11(b) when it includes claimant-specific employment details, pay information, alleged violations, damages, and supporting time records. It also reinforces that the State's limited consent to be sued under the FLSA is conditioned on strict compliance with filing deadlines, so late-claim relief remains tightly constrained.
Detailed wage-and-hour allegations and timesheets can be enough to keep an FLSA claim in the Court of Claims alive, but missing the statutory filing deadline may still be fatal because sovereign-immunity waiver rules are strictly enforced.