1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEVEN SLAUGHTER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF 

AMERICA, 

Defendant,

 Civil Action No. 23-2703 (JEB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Steven Slaughter — a campus police officer employed by Defendant Catholic 

University of America for over a dozen years — has filed this suit against his former employer 

for allegedly failing to compensate him for hours worked and neglecting to pay overtime wages. 

Catholic moves to dismiss on grounds of federal preemption and failure to state a claim. 

Agreeing with the latter charge, the Court will grant the Motion. In doing so, it dismisses the 

Complaint but not the case, and it will permit Slaughter leave to amend. 

I. Background 

The Court draws the facts from the Complaint, as it must at this stage. Slaughter worked 

in the Department of Public Safety at Catholic between March 3, 2008, and October 25, 2021. 

See ECF No. 1-2 (Compl.), ¶ 2. From 2016 onward, the University regularly “required [Plaintiff 

and other] employees to perform integral and indispensable work off-the-clock, rounded down 

the number of hours worked and recorded by [them], and then paid them only for the reduced 

hours instead of the actual hours they worked.” Id., ¶¶ 6, 22. Slaughter, for example, was 

required to arrive at 6:30 a.m. to “obtain briefings and participate in rollcall” in advance of his 

7:00 a.m. shift but was never compensated for that time. Id., ¶¶ 24–25. Catholic also failed to 
2

pay him overtime wages during weekly pay periods in which he worked more than 40 hours. Id., 

¶ 26. He cites the pay period of March 16 to March 31, 2021, as an example: despite working 86 

hours during that timeframe, he was paid for all hours at his “regular rate of $23.85.” Id., ¶ 27. 

On August 3, 2023, Slaughter filed the instant suit on behalf of himself and a class of 

similarly situated University employees in D.C. Superior Court. Id. at 1. He alleged that 

Defendant did not “timely pay wages” in violation of the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection 

Law (WPCL), D.C. Code §§ 32-1301 et seq. (Count I) and did not pay overtime in violation of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (Count II), and D.C. Minimum 

Wage Act (MWA), D.C. Code §§ 32-1001 et seq. (Count III). Id., ¶¶ 52–73. 

Invoking federal-question jurisdiction, Catholic then removed the action to this Court on 

September 15, 2023, see ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), and moved to dismiss the following 

week. See ECF No. 4 (MTD). 

II. Legal Standard 

 Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of an action where a complaint fails “to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” In evaluating a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a court 

must “treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true . . . and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of 

all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 

216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. 

Cir. 1979)) (citation omitted); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 

1250 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

Although “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 
3

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must put forth “factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. The court need not accept as true “a legal conclusion couched as a 

factual allegation,” nor an inference unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. Trudeau 

v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 

265, 286 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For a plaintiff to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, 

the facts alleged in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56 (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). 

III. Analysis 

Catholic’s Motion raises a number of substantial issues — including (1) whether all three

of Plaintiff’s claims “substantially depend” on the Collective Bargaining Agreement between his 

union and the University and are thus preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act; (2) 

whether, even if construed as asserting a claim under that statute, the Complaint must still be 

dismissed because there are grievance procedures under the CBA that remain unexhausted; (3)

whether the Court may consider the CBA without converting the Motion to a motion for 

summary judgment, which could be premature without discovery; and (4) whether the claims

meet the minimum standard of adequate pleading at this stage. 

The Court, however, need not address them all at this juncture. The sufficiency of the 

sole federal count — which alleges a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA — may 

be assessed without considering the issue of preemption or consulting the CBA. As the Court 

agrees that such cause of action is insufficiently pled, it will dismiss that count without prejudice 

on that ground alone and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the others. The 
4

Court will, however, dismiss only the Complaint and not the entire case, thus permitting

Slaughter to amend. 

A. FLSA Claim

The FLSA ordinarily requires employers to pay “one and one-half times [an employee’s] 

regular rate” for every hour she works in excess of forty in a given workweek. See 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207(a); Galloway v. Chugach Gov’t Servs., Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 145, 149 (D.D.C. 2016). To 

state a claim for unpaid overtime, Slaughter would thus need to allege, among other things, that 

he worked more than forty hours in a workweek and that Catholic did not pay him overtime for 

the excess hours. See Galloway, 199 F. Supp. 3d at 149. In seeking dismissal, Defendant 

maintains that he has not done so. 

In the post-Twombly era, courts have at times reached divergent conclusions as to the 

level of factual specificity required to clear such pleading bar. Compare, e.g., Mell v. GNC 

Corp., 2010 WL 4668966, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2010) (dismissing FLSA claims where 

plaintiffs failed to “estimate the time periods in which they worked without proper overtime 

compensation”), with Freeman v. MedStar Health Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 249, 257 (D.D.C. 2015) 

(“Where a complaint alleges, as the amended complaint does, that overtime hours were worked 

but overtime wages were not received, it sufficiently states a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.”) (cleaned up). 

Although the D.C. Circuit has not yet weighed in, other circuit courts appear to be 

converging on a middle ground. The First Circuit, following its title, was the first to address this 

question in Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs there had sued 

several hospitals and their executives for violating, inter alia, the overtime provisions of the 

FLSA. Id. at 11–12. After the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ initial complaint because it 
5

lacked “even an allegation that they had worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek,” 

plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging exactly that — viz., they “regularly worked hours 

over 40 in a week and were not compensated for such time.” Id. at 12–13. But that amendment, 

too, ultimately proved insufficient. Affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the amended 

complaint, the First Circuit held that the amended language was “little more than a paraphrase of 

the statute.” Id. at 13. The additional allegation that time plaintiffs spent working during meal

breaks was automatically discounted — while conceivably describing a mechanism through 

which the overtime violations could have occurred — did not remediate that deficiency. The 

circuit took issue with the plaintiffs’ failure to “provide examples (let alone estimates as to the 

amounts) of such unpaid time,” “describe the nature of the work performed during those times,” 

or allege anything to exclude the possibility that they received “additional compensation” that 

may have “offset any deficiency created by [that] uncompensated time.” Id. at 14. 

The Second Circuit confronted a similar issue in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of 

Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013), where the complaint alleged that one plaintiff 

“occasionally” and another “twice a month” worked longer than forty hours in a workweek 

without specifying that they were not paid overtime for those particular weeks. Id. at 114–15. In 

affirming the dismissal of that complaint, the court ruled that “in order to state a plausible FLSA 

overtime claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege 40 hours of work in a given workweek as well 

as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.” Id. at 114. 

Other circuits have followed suit. See Davis v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 

242–43 (3d Cir. 2014) (adopting Lundy standard and affirming dismissal of FLSA overtime 

claims where plaintiffs alleged that they “frequently” worked over forty hours without specifying 

that in any such week they were deprived of overtime pay); Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 
6

771 F.3d 638, 645–46 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Jan. 26, 2015) (agreeing with Pruell, Lundy, 

and Davis, and affirming dismissal of FLSA overtime claims where complaint lacked “any detail 

regarding a given workweek when Landers worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid 

overtime for that given workweek”); Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 777–78 (4th Cir. 

2017) (adopting Lundy standard but reversing dismissal of overtime claims where complaint had 

described “in some detail [plaintiffs’] regular work schedules, rates of pay, and uncompensated 

work time,” including estimates of hours worked per workweek and average weekly pay); see 

also Hirst v. Skywest, Inc., 910 F.3d 961, 966 (7th Cir. 2018) (extending Lundy standard to 

FLSA minimum-wage claims); ElHelbawy v. Pritzker, 663 F. App’x 658, 663 (10th Cir. 2016) 

(applying Lundy standard in unpublished decision); Lincoln-Odumu v. Med. Fac. Assocs., Inc., 

2016 WL 6427645, at *12 (D.D.C. July 8, 2016) (noting split among district courts). 

These decisions, to be sure, do not necessarily imply that a plaintiff must identify the 

dates of any specific week in which she worked overtime and received less than time-and-a-half

pay for the excess hours. The Third and Fourth Circuits have in fact explicitly rejected such a 

requirement. See Davis, 765 F.3d at 243 (cautioning that “we do not hold that a plaintiff must 

identify the exact dates and times that she worked overtime”); Hall, 846 F.3d at 777 (same). And 

they certainly do not demand approximations of overtime hours worked and wages owed. But 

the plaintiff must still provide sufficient factual context to support an inference that there is at 

least one workweek in which she worked overtime and was undercompensated. A general 

statement to that effect will not suffice. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”); Pruell, 678 F.3d at 13 (general 

allegation that plaintiffs worked more than forty hours merely “paraphras[ed]” FLSA and was 
7

insufficient); see also Davis, 765 F.3d at 241 (characterizing Lundy standard as “middle-ground 

approach”). 

The Court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint here falls short of that standard. See

MTD at 23–24. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the thirty-minute pre-shift rollcall and the hours 

he worked from March 16–31, 2021, are the most specific factual assertions in the Complaint 

potentially bearing on his FLSA overtime claim, yet neither raises the claim above the 

speculative level. Nowhere does the Complaint (or even the Opposition) allege that the pre-shift 

rollcall caused Slaughter to work longer than forty hours in any given workweek. See Compl.; 

ECF No. 9 (Opp.) at 18–22; see also Akinsinde v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp., 216 F. Supp. 3d 

33, 42 (D.D.C. 2016). As Catholic points out, furthermore, the March 2021 pay period 

encompasses sixteen — not fourteen — calendar days (i.e., March 16–31, 2021). See MTD at 

24. It does not follow (and the Court will not speculate) from the fact that Plaintiff worked 86 

hours across those days that he worked more than forty hours in any given workweek within that 

timeframe. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.105 (defining “workweek” as “a fixed and regularly recurring 

period of 168 hours — seven consecutive 24-hour periods”). 

Beyond these allegations, all that remains in support of the overtime claim is the bare 

assertion that “CUA failed to pay Plaintiff . . . for working more than 40 hours in a weekly pay 

period.” Compl., ¶ 26. That is precisely the sort of “paraphrase” of the FLSA deemed 

insufficient in Pruell and implicitly rejected by the circuit cases that followed. See Pruell, 678 

F.3d at 13; see also Akinsinde, 216 F. Supp. 3d at 42 (“Without some facts, Plaintiff’s bare 

assertion that ‘she should have been paid at the overtime pay rate for all time worked over 40 

hours per week’ is insufficient to make out a claim under the FLSA.”); Chan Chan v. Children’s 

Nat’l Med. Ctr., 2019 WL 4471789, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2019) (allegation that Plaintiff was 
8

“rejected overtime pay,” without further detail, fails to state claim under FLSA). Slaughter’s 

overtime claim is therefore insufficient on its face, and the Court need not consider the payroll

records for March 16–31 that Catholic has attached to its Motion to Dismiss to reach that 

conclusion. See MTD at 24 n.6. 

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary largely miss the point and can be dispensed with 

quickly. Catholic does not contend — and the Court does not hold — that he must “delineate the 

complete extent” of the overtime violation; instead, he must supply some factual detail beyond a 

recitation of the elements of his cause of action. See Opp. at 19; ECF No. 10 (Reply) at 13. The 

allegation regarding the March 2021 pay period may have served that function but for the fact

that it spans 16 days — an inconvenient detail that Plaintiff does not squarely address. And the 

principal case he relies upon, Galloway v. Chugach Government Services, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 

145 (D.D.C. 2016), can be distinguished. See Opp. at 18–21. The overtime claim in Galloway, 

in contrast to the one here, “comfortably satisfie[d] the usual pleading standard” in part because 

it specified that the plaintiffs “regularly” worked “more than five shifts per week” and estimated

that they worked at least 250 hours of overtime per year over three years. Id. at 150–51. 

Plaintiff’s overtime claims here are not nearly as detailed. See, e.g., Compl., ¶¶ 19, 26 (alleging 

that Plaintiff “regularly worked overtime without compensation” but including no shift numbers 

or estimations). 

Count II will therefore be dismissed without prejudice. Further, as the federal question 

raised in that count was the sole basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court 

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining D.C. wage claims. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 
9

B. Leave to Amend

The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. The case, however, 

still lives. See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 666–67 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (explaining that dismissal 

of a case — whether with or without prejudice — is final and appealable decision that terminates 

the action, whereas dismissal of complaint without prejudice allows plaintiff to “amend his 

pleading and continue the litigation”) (citation omitted). Within thirty days from the date this 

Opinion is filed, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint setting forth in greater detail the 

factual basis for his claims. 

IV. Conclusion 

The Court, in short, will dismiss Slaughter’s Complaint but permit him to amend it. An 

Order so stating will issue this day. 

/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

Chief Judge 

Date: November 15, 2023