Patrick G. Brady

Donovan v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2937, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168188 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Rite Aid of New York, Inc., and David Harper, dismissing the claims of plaintiff Frederick Donovan, a former assistant store manager who participated in class action litigation alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). In its decision, the court determined that, as a matter of law, the class action settlement agreement, of which the plaintiff was an opt-in member, released all the claims alleged in his subsequent lawsuit, including his claims of retaliation.

The 10 individual cases that follow were brought by former opt-ins who were part of a FLSA nationwide conditional collective action that was decertified:

1. Marine v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176823 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court dismissed the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.Civ.P”) 41(b) for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

2. Biagiotti v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 503 B.R. 232 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

3. Yuskauskas v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176238 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

4. Schneider v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176234 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

5-10. In each of the following six cases, the court granted summary judgment to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs, each former assistant store managers, who participated in litigation alleging overtime violations under the FLSA and the NYLL. In each decision, the court found that the plaintiff was properly classified as a bona fide executive exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the federal and state laws.

• Repp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79882 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Pangione v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79761 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Glickman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75180 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Holloway v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62187 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Yingling v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, ECF No. 190, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116907 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Amash v. Home Depot, 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133214(N.D.N.Y. 2014).

Parson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-4817, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26503 (D.N.J. 2014). By Order dated March 3, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory discharge for reporting breaches of company privacy policy in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead the statute, regulation, or public policy that was violated in the plaintiff’s discharge.

Rodriguez v. Canada Dry Bottling Company, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134838, 2015 WL 5770502 (D.N.J. 2015) (Hayden J.). By Order dated September 30, 2015, the District Court granted Canada Dry’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims of three distributors for misclassification under the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and for benefits under ERISA, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Frazier v. Home Depot, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147098, 2016 WL 4820172 (D.N.J. 2016)(Linares J.). By Order dated February 8, 2016, the District Court granted Home Depot’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII claims of race discrimination and retaliatory discharge for failure to plead discrimination and retaliation claims. By Order entered on April 5, 2016, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Kennantudawe v. Home Depot, Civil Action No. 15-8752 (MCA/SCM) (D.N.J. 2016). By Order dated August 2, 2016, the court granted Home Depot’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to meet pleading requirements. By Order dated August 26, 2016, the court closed the case.

Yesmin v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc., No. CV 10-4157, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127655 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). By Order entered on September 6, 2012, the court granted Rite Aid’s motion for summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff’s FLSA claim for unpaid overtime because he was misclassified under the executive exemption.

Cancel v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 18-cv-12863, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. By Order dated April 18, 2019, the court granted Home Depot’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s pro se Complaint without prejudice alleging disability discrimination, and permitted the plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by May 17, 2019. Cancel v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 18-12863 (MAS)(TJB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66798, at *1-2 (D.N.J. April 18, 2019). The plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint by the May 17, 2019, deadline. The court closed the case.

Juan Vallejo v. Rite Aid, OCR No. 18-290089. On December 11, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), issued a Complaint on behalf of Juan Vallejo (Complainant) alleging that Rite Aid engaged in unlawful discrimination based on his race or national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. On December 19, 2018, OCR issued a letter opinion rejecting Complainant’s allegations holding that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant’s allegation that Rite Aid discriminated against him on the basis of his race or national origin.