The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Presently before this Court is Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs‟ Complaint.*fn1
Doc. No. 6. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs‟ Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) and Brief in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 7), and Plaintiffs‟ Brief in Opposition to Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14). For the reasons that follow, Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at this stage the Court accepts all of the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in Plaintiffs‟ favor. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). Therefore, the facts of the case are as follows:
Plaintiffs and the Class members were or are currently employees of Defendant. Doc. No. 1 ¶ 8. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendant expected Plaintiffs "to be available to work before commencement of their shift, during their promised meal break and after completion of their assigned shift for work-related tasks." Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiffs performed pre-shift work including: receiving pass down instructions, checking equipment, reviewing post orders, collecting schedules, meeting with supervisors, guarding, monitoring, patrolling, inspecting, and surveying. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiffs regularly performed post-shift work that included: preparing logs and event reports, collecting schedules, meeting with supervisors and providing pass down instructions. Id. at ¶ 29. Such work was undertaken by Plaintiffs for approximately 15-30 minutes of pre-shift work each day and 15 minutes to two hours of post-shift work per week. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 36. Defendant knew that such work was regularly performed because "Defendant‟s agents regularly encouraged, instructed, suffered and permitted" Plaintiffs to perform this work and observed them doing so. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 31.
Plaintiffs did not receive full compensation for the pre-shift and post-shift work that they performed because Defendant‟s timekeeping and pay practices improperly placed the burden on Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶ 23, 33. Defendants also failed to implement any rules, systems or procedures to prohibit Plaintiffs from performing such work or to ensure that they were properly paid for such work. Id. at ¶ 24, 34.
Defendant also maintained a policy and practice that required Plaintiffs to maintain a professional appearance in the work place. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiffs were given fewer work uniforms than the number of shifts they worked each week. Id. at ¶ 40. As such, Plaintiffs were required "to clean and maintain their work uniforms including: shirts, trousers, socks, shoes, belts, hats, ties, jackets, weapons, tools and other items, in good and presentable condition."
("uniform maintenance work") Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiffs performed one to two hours of uniform maintenance work each week at home. Id. at ¶ 49. Plaintiffs were routinely not paid for the time they performed uniform maintenance work because they could not perform the tasks during their shifts and because Defendant‟s time keeping and pay policies improperly placed the burden on Plaintiffs and Defendants routinely failed to record such time. Id. at ¶ 42-43, 46.
As a result of pre-shift and post-shift work as well as uniform maintenance work, Defendant improperly retained money that should have been paid to ...