Konstantynovska v Friendly Home Care, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Wage-and-hour claims in the home care industry involving pay for 24-hour 'live-in' shifts for home health aides (HHAs) and personal care assistants (PCAs), overtime, and spread-of-hours.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, certified a class of all non-residential HHAs/PCAs who worked for the defendant in New York from April 14, 2011 to the date of the order under CPLR 901(a) [class certification prerequisites: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority].
Class certification was reversed and denied.
Plaintiff failed to provide an evidentiary basis showing a uniform policy or practice violating wage laws: no proof that live-in aides were denied the prescribed breaks necessary to require payment for all 24 hours under 12 NYCRR 142-2.1 [minimum wage wage order; applied to live-in shifts allowing payment for 13 hours if prescribed breaks are provided] and Andryeyeva; pay stubs showed only a small number of potential violations, insufficient to establish a companywide practice; and there was insufficient evidence of overtime, spread-of-hours, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 6-109 [local wage standard provision cited], Public Health Law § 3614-c [home care worker wage parity law], and Labor Law §§ 191 and 193 [§191 governs frequency/timeliness of wage payments; §193 restricts deductions] violations, or of record-keeping or sleep-facility deficiencies.
Background
In April 2017, plaintiff, a former HHA who often worked 24-hour live-in shifts for defendant, filed a putative class action alleging failures to pay minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours premiums to HHAs and PCAs who worked both live-in and hourly shifts. In April 2021, she moved for class certification for '[a]ll individuals who performed work on behalf of Defendant as non-residential home health aides and/or personal care assistants in the State of New York' during a specified period. Defendant opposed, arguing plaintiff had not met the evidentiary burden for class certification and that the proposed class did not satisfy CPLR 901(a) [class certification prerequisites: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority].
Lower Court Decision
By order dated March 17, 2022, the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), granted class certification for all individuals who performed work for defendant as non-residential HHAs/PCAs in New York from April 14, 2011 through the date of the order.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the Appellate Division denied class certification. The Court held that class certification must rest on an evidentiary basis, not conclusory assertions. Although claims of uniform systemwide violations can be appropriate for class treatment, plaintiff failed to show a policy or practice of denying the prescribed breaks to live-in aides, a necessary predicate to requiring pay for all 24 hours under 12 NYCRR 142-2.1 and Andryeyeva. Pay stubs reflected only a small number of potential wage violations, insufficient to establish a systemwide unlawful policy. Plaintiff also failed to provide evidence supporting classwide claims for unpaid overtime, spread-of-hours, violations of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 6-109, Public Health Law § 3614-c, and Labor Law §§ 191 and 193, or for record-keeping and sleep-facility violations.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores the evidentiary burden for class certification in New York wage-and-hour cases, particularly in the home care sector. Plaintiffs must present admissible, classwide proof of a uniform policy or practice—such as widespread denial of required breaks under the 13-hour live-in rule—rather than rely on a few pay irregularities or generalized allegations. It harmonizes with Andryeyeva by acknowledging that uniform practices may warrant certification, while enforcing the need for concrete evidence.
Without evidence of a uniform, systemwide policy—e.g., consistent denial of required breaks on live-in shifts—class certification under CPLR 901(a) will be denied; isolated paystub anomalies and conclusory assertions are insufficient.