United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) [Docket No.
39]. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
operate group homes focused on providing care for
developmentally disabled adults. Docket No. 33 at 2, ¶
6-7. For approximately ten years, plaintiff was employed by
defendants as a life skills specialist. Id. at 1-2,
¶¶ 5-6. By the end of her employment,
plaintiff's work consisted almost entirely of 56-hour
shifts at the Nevada Group Home, one of several facilities
operated by defendants. Id. at 2, ¶¶ 6-9.
plaintiff's ten-year employment, plaintiff worked under
defendants' “continuous shift policy.”
Id. at 3, ¶ 14. Under the continuous shift
policy, defendants' employees worked approximately 56
consecutive hours before being relieved by another employee.
Id. at 3, ¶ 15. Plaintiff states that she was
only paid for 40 of the 56 hours she worked for each shift.
Id. at 5, ¶ 30.
alleges that defendants failed to adequately compensate
plaintiff for certain categories of time including: time
spent communicating with other workers at the beginning and
end of her shifts, id. at 5, ¶¶ 34-35;
sleep time, which was regularly interrupted such that
plaintiff did not usually get five hours of continuous and
uninterrupted sleep, id. at 9, ¶ 59; and extra
time worked as a result of the change to daylight savings
time. Id., ¶¶ 60-61. Plaintiff also
alleges that the sleeping facilities provided by defendants
were inadequate because they were not private quarters,
separated from the residents of the group home. Id.
at 10, ¶ 66-67. Plaintiff claims that the staff room set
aside for sleeping did not have amenities for recreation,
offered little privacy, was illuminated by hallway lights,
and that the residents of the group home would enter her
sleeping quarters without permission. Id. at 10-12,
states that she never entered into a formal agreement with
defendants to deduct 16 hours of sleep time from her
paychecks. Id. at 12, ¶ 76. Plaintiff alleges
that, “on several occasions [she] objected to
Defendants' failure to compensate her for the nighttime
hours during her Continuous Shifts.” Id. at
13, ¶ 81.
result of the foregoing conduct, plaintiff seeks relief under
the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§
8-4-101, et seq., and Wage Order, 7 Colo. Code Regs. §
1103-1 (first claim for relief); under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (second claim
for relief); and equitable relief under Colorado law (third
claim for relief). Docket No. 33 at 18-21, ¶¶
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must allege enough factual matter that, taken as true, makes
the plaintiff's “claim to relief . . . plausible on
its face.” Bryson v. Gonzales, 534 F.3d 1282,
1286 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[W]here the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged
- but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration marks
omitted). Thus, even though modern rules of pleading are
somewhat forgiving, “a complaint still must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some
viable legal theory.” Bryson, 534 F.3d at 1286
(alteration marks omitted).
raise three arguments in the motion to dismiss: first,
plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts regarding
uncompensated time; second, plaintiff has failed to allege
that the sleeping facilities provided by defendants were
inadequate; and, third, plaintiff has impliedly agreed to
defendants' sleep time arrangement by working under the
continuous shift policy for ten years. Docket No. 39 at
Uncompensated Sleep Time
claim that the continuous shift policy used at the Nevada
Group Home is permitted by the FLSA. Docket No. 39 at 11.
Specifically, defendants ...