Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—S.D.N.Y.: Hospital security supervisor can pursue overtime, late-pay claims, (Aug 13, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Disputed evidence about a security supervisor’s physical duties, managerial authority, and level of oversight requires a jury to decide whether federal and New York wage protections applied.

A longtime Mount Sinai West security supervisor can pursue claims for unpaid overtime and untimely wages because his title and supervisory responsibilities did not establish that he was an overtime-exempt executive or that he was excluded from New York’s protections for manual workers. Evidence that he spent substantial time patrolling the hospital, responding to emergencies, and restraining patients could support a finding that he performed enough physical labor to qualify as a manual worker while raising questions about whether management was his primary duty. His retaliation claims failed, however, because 13 months separated his potentially protected pay complaint from his firing, and Mount Sinai West documented a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for terminating him (Lopez v. St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center dba Mt. Sinai West, No. 23-CV-02880 (JAV) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2026)).

The security employee began working for Mount Sinai West in 2005 as a nonexempt security officer paid hourly with time-and-a-half overtime. He became a field supervisor in 2006 and a senior supervisor in 2019. Although the parties disputed whether he was paid hourly or on a salary as a field supervisor, his duties included supervising security officers, checking posts, disciplining employees, conducting investigations, evaluating new officers, and later overseeing field supervisors. Mount Sinai West fired the supervisor in August 2022 following an investigation into allegations that he directed security officers to purchase alcohol for him while on duty and bring it onto hospital premises.

He later sued the St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, doing business as Mount Sinai West, and related defendants under the FLSA, New York Labor Law, and New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. He sought unpaid overtime and compensation for work during unpaid meal breaks and asserted claims for untimely wage payments and retaliation. Mount Sinai West sought summary judgment on those claims.

Physical duties. Mount Sinai West argued that the employee could not pursue his untimely payment claim because he was not a “manual worker” entitled to weekly wages under New York law. New York defines a manual worker as a mechanic, workingman, or laborer, and the state Department of Labor has long interpreted that category to include employees who spend more than 25 percent of their working time performing physical labor. Whether an employee qualifies depends on the duties actually performed.

Mount Sinai West characterized the supervisor’s position as essentially a desk job, pointing to his scheduling and paperwork responsibilities. But the evidence did not establish that he spent most of his time at a desk. His affidavit stated that he performed physical labor for more than 25 percent of his shifts, including walking throughout the hospital, patrolling, responding to emergencies, and restraining patients. He sometimes spent as many as seven hours per shift walking the premises.

Mount Sinai West argued that the affidavit conflicted with the supervisor’s deposition and should be disregarded. The court rejected that contention. His deposition testimony that some emergencies took as little as 10 minutes described a minimum, not the average amount of time he spent performing physical labor. Because the affidavit did not unequivocally contradict his deposition, a jury must decide whether his duties made him a manual worker entitled to weekly pay.

Executive exemption. Factual disputes also prevented Mount Sinai West from establishing that the supervisor fell within the executive exemption from federal and state overtime requirements. The exemption requires, among other things, that management constitute the employee’s primary duty, that the employee regularly direct at least two other employees, and that he have authority over hiring or firing or make personnel recommendations that receive particular weight. Mount Sinai West had to satisfy each requirement to prevail at summary judgment.

Although the employee performed supervisory functions, evidence about his day-to-day work raised questions about whether management was his primary duty. He interacted daily with the assistant security director, who oversaw his work, and testified that his performance evaluations of other employees required the assistant director’s approval. He also spent substantial time performing nonexempt duties, including patrols and emergency responses that sometimes kept him on his feet for as many as seven hours per shift.

His influence over personnel decisions was similarly disputed. The supervisor described the assistant director as a “micromanager” who instructed him what to write in incident reports. He also testified that the assistant director rejected his recommendation to terminate a security officer for tardiness. Therefore, a jury could find that his personnel recommendations did not receive the particular weight required for the executive exemption.

Retaliation fails. The supervisor fared differently on his retaliation claims. He had complained twice about his compensation, first after his 2019 promotion and again in July 2021 after discovering that he was not receiving a night-shift differential. Mount Sinai West investigated the latter complaint and paid him the full amount owed.

The first complaint did not qualify as protected activity because he merely complained about being underpaid after his promotion. Nothing indicated that he was asserting rights protected by the FLSA, and his compensation exceeded the applicable New York minimum wage and salary requirements. The night-differential complaint presented a closer question because shift differentials can affect overtime calculations. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the complaint sufficiently alerted Mount Sinai West to a potential FLSA violation even though the supervisor did not characterize the issue in legal terms.

Even so, causation defeated the claim. Thirteen months separated the July 2021 complaint from his August 2022 firing, and he offered no evidence of retaliatory animus. A negative performance review four months after the complaint did not bridge that gap, particularly because criticism of his performance predated the protected activity. He had received an excessive-lateness warning in February 2020 identifying 15 instances of tardiness over five months.

Mount Sinai West also documented a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the termination. After a security officer reported that the supervisor had directed another employee to buy alcohol for him on company time, hospital officials obtained a written statement corroborated by security footage. The investigation concluded that the supervisor had repeatedly directed employees to purchase alcohol and bring it onto hospital premises, violating hospital policy and abusing his supervisory authority.

The supervisor produced insufficient evidence that retaliation, rather than the misconduct identified by Mount Sinai West, caused his termination. His FLSA and New York Labor Law retaliation claims were dismissed, leaving his remaining wage claims to proceed.

The case is No. 23-CV-02800 (JAV).

Judge: Vargas, J.

Attorneys: Peter Hans Cooper (Cilenti & Cooper) for Hubert Lopez. Jeffrey A. Kimmel (Akerman) for St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center dba Mount Sinai West, Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc., Richard Irizzary, and Lloyd Vasquez.

Companies: St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center; Mount Sinai West; Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc.

Cases: WageHour Overtime Exemptions Retaliation StateLawClaims NewYorkNews