Where a U.S. magistrate judge has recommended denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, that recommendation should be adopted because the plaintiff adequately alleges that the defendant is his employer under the FLSA.
“Plaintiff Brian Dombal brings this collective action under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals who have allegedly worked in ‘patient care roles’ for Defendant Trinity Health Corporation. … Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s alleged ‘policy and practice of deducting time from recorded hours for meal periods and/or requiring patient care staff to work through their unpaid meal periods without pay.’ …
“Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 25, 2025. … The Complaint explains that Plaintiff is employed as a nurse at the Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford, Connecticut. … Plaintiff alleges that Defendant ‘owns and operates’ Saint Francis along with other hospitals located in other states. … He further alleges that Defendant ‘jointly, directly or indirectly, controlled the employment terms, pay practices, timekeeping practices, and daily work of Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs along with the facilities where they worked.’ …
“… Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendant is his ‘employer’ under the FLSA. … Defendant also argues that Plaintiff does not plausibly have standing to sue it for unpaid wages due to the purported absence of an employer-employee relationship. …
“The Court referred Defendant’s motion to Chief Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for a Report and Recommendation (R&R). … On April 30, 2026, Judge Grand issued an R&R recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s motion. …
“Defendant first objects to the analysis that led Judge Grand to conclude that Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendant is his employer under the FLSA. … Defendant’s objection is overruled. The Court agrees with Judge Grand that Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendant is his employer under the FLSA and finds no error in the R&R’s analysis of this issue for the following reasons. …
“Defendant points repeatedly to its own characterization of its corporate relationships and the structure of these relationships to argue that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendant is his employer. The Court is not persuaded. …
“Finally, Defendant argues that the Complaint lacks ‘factual content showing that the defendant exercised meaningful control over the plaintiff’s employment in practice.’ … This argument ignores the portion of the R&R that identifies allegations that, taken as true, suffice to demonstrate Defendant’s supervision and control of relevant aspects of Plaintiff’s employment, including its setting of policies for timekeeping and compensation. …
“In sum, Defendant does not demonstrate that Judge Grand erred in concluding that the Complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant was Plaintiff’s ‘employer’ under 29 U.S.C. §203(d). …
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s objections (ECF No. 24) are OVERRULED. Judge Grand’s R&R (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED and Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.