Collette Davis v. Abington Mem Hosp

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a plaintiff alleging “that she worked forty hours per week, worked extra hours during such a forty-hour week, and was not compensated for extra hours . . . during one or more of those forty-hour weeks, would suffice”
• adopting Lundy v. Cath. Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013)
• affirming dismissal where “[n]one of the named plaintiffs [had] alleged a single workweek in which he or she worked at least forty hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess of forty hours”
• adopting Lundy standard and affirming dismissal of FLSA overtime claims where plaintiffs alleged that they “frequently” worked over forty hours without specifying that in any such week they were deprived of overtime pay
• “[Detailed factual allegations” are not required, but a complaint must do more than simply provide “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
• “None of the named plaintiffs has alleged a single workweek in which he or she worked at least forty hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess of forty hours.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).