United States District Court, D. Maryland
Lipton Hollander United States District Judge.
Jackey Ridenour, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed suit against his former employer, B&H New
& Used Auto Parts, Inc. (“B&H”) and
B&H's two owner-operators, Charmie and Richard
Polansky. ECF 1 (Complaint). He alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq. (Count I); the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law (“MWHL”), as amended, Md. Code (2016
Repl. Vol.), §§ 3-401 et seq. of the Labor
and Employment Article (“L.E.”) (Count II); and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
(“MWPCL”), as amended, L.E. §§ 3-501
et seq. (Count III).
alleges that he worked for defendants from 2000 until his
termination in July 2016. ECF 1, ¶¶ 21, 26.
According to plaintiff, during his employment, he performed a
number of jobs, including cataloguing parts, performing
general maintenance, and assisting with sales. Id.
¶¶ 23-32. According to plaintiff, he typically
worked between 45 and 63 hours a week. Id. ¶
46. In particular, he claims that he worked from 8:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and every other weekend on
both Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
Id. ¶ 27.
plaintiff states that he was paid $1, 000 per week from the
time he began his employment until July 2014, and that he was
paid $1, 350 per week from July 2014 until he was fired.
Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Of import here, plaintiff
maintains that he was not paid overtime for the hours he
worked beyond 40 hours a week. Id. ¶ 33.
Moreover, plaintiff alleges that defendants were aware that
plaintiff performed overtime work and were also aware that he
did not receive overtime wages. Id. ¶¶ 54,
also contends that there are other current and former
employees of defendants who are similarly situated and were
not paid overtime. Id. ¶¶ 61-66. However,
no other plaintiffs have yet joined the suit, and plaintiff
has not moved for conditional certification. See
pending is defendants' motion to dismiss under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. ECF 9.
The motion to dismiss is supported by a memorandum of law
(ECF 9-1) (collectively, the “Motion”).
Defendants also request a hearing. ECF 9, ¶ 6. Plaintiff
opposes the Motion. ECF 10. Defendants replied. ECF 11.
hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny
The Wage Laws
claims that defendants violated the provisions of the FLSA
and the MWHL by failing to pay him overtime compensation when
he worked in excess of forty hours per week. ECF 1,
¶¶ 79, 84; see 29 U.S.C. § 207; L.E.
§ 3-414. And, plaintiff claims that defendants violated
the MWPCL by failing to pay him all wages due for work
performed before plaintiffs termination. ECF 1, ¶ 89;
see L.E. § 3-505(a).
FLSA provides that, for any hours worked in excess of forty
hours per week, an employee shall “receive
compensation for his employment . . . at a rate not less than
one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is
employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207. Similarly, L.E. §
3- 415(a) provides that “each employer shall pay an
overtime wage of at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage,
” and L.E. § 3-420(a) provides that overtime wages
shall be computed “on the basis of each hour over 40
hours that an employee works during 1 workweek.”
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) states:
Any employer who violates the provisions of . . . section 207
of this title shall be liable to the employee . . . affected
in the amount of . . . their unpaid overtime compensation, .
. . and in an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages.... The court in such action shall, in addition to
any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a
reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant,
and costs of the action.
law is to the same effect. It states that “[i]f an
employer pays an employee less than the wage required under
this subtitle, the employee may bring an action against the
employer to recover the difference between the wage paid to
the employee and the wage required under this subtitle,
” as well as for costs and attorney's fees. L.E.
§§ 3-427(a), (d).
regard to the payment of regular wages, the MWPCL provides,
inter alia, that an employer “shall pay the
employee all wages due upon termination.” L.E. §
3-505(a). Moreover, L.E. § 3-507.1(a) ...