In 2024, a proposed class action lawsuit, Alshami et al. v. State of New York, No. 1:24-cv-05790, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, current and former City University of New York (CUNY) peace officers, allege that the State of New York has unlawfully paid them substantially lower salaries than similarly situated police officers employed by the State University of New York (SUNY).

According to the complaint, CUNY peace officers and SUNY police officers perform substantially similar law enforcement and public safety functions but receive significantly different compensation. The plaintiffs allege that SUNY police officers earn approximately twice the salary of CUNY peace officers. The complaint further alleges that the higher-paid SUNY workforce is predominantly white, while the lower-paid CUNY peace officer workforce is predominantly composed of people of color. Based on these allegations, the lawsuit asserts violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, contending that the compensation disparity constitutes unlawful race-based discrimination.

Separate from the discrimination litigation, Mohamed Alshami serves as the lead-named claimant in a series of wage-and-hour actions against the State of New York and CUNY arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Those actions include Claim Nos. 139427, 142884, and 144248 in the New York State Court of Claims.

The Court of Claims actions challenge several alleged compensation practices affecting CUNY campus peace officers and security personnel. The claims include allegations that employees were not compensated for time spent donning and doffing required uniforms and equipment before and after scheduled shifts; that overtime calculations improperly excluded shift and fire safety differentials from the regular rate of pay; that supervisors performed uncompensated work before and after scheduled tours; that interrupted meal periods were not properly compensated; and that overtime wages were not paid on the first regular payday as allegedly required under the FLSA, resulting in claims for liquidated damages.

In Alshami v. State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03111 (Claim No. 142884), the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the dismissal of the FLSA claim and reinstated the action. The court held that the claim satisfied the pleading requirements of the New York Court of Claims Act by providing sufficient factual detail concerning the claimants' employment, overtime worked, alleged FLSA violations, and damages sought. The decision confirmed that adequately pleaded FLSA overtime claims may proceed in the New York Court of Claims.

The most recent Court of Claims action, Claim No. 144248, expands the litigation on behalf of more than sixty current and former CUNY campus security employees. The complaint alleges five categories of FLSA violations: (1) compensation for donning and doffing required uniforms and equipment; (2) proper inclusion of shift and fire safety differentials in overtime calculations; (3) compensation for supervisors' pre- and post-shift work; (4) compensation for interrupted meal periods; and (5) liquidated damages based on the alleged untimely payment of overtime wages. In December 2025, the Court of Claims denied the State's motion to dismiss, permitting the litigation to proceed.

The litigation also relates to other wage-and-hour actions involving public-sector security personnel, including Campbell et al. v. City of New York, No. 24-cv-02575, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Ayuso v. State of New York.

Collectively, these cases present significant questions concerning the compensation of New York public-sector campus law enforcement and security employees. They address issues including compensable work time under the FLSA, calculation of overtime based on the regular rate of pay, compensation for interrupted meal periods, the timing of overtime payments, and procedural standards governing FLSA actions against the State of New York. Separately, the federal discrimination action raises allegations that compensation disparities between CUNY peace officers and SUNY police officers violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The State denies liability, and, except where courts have ruled on procedural matters, the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations remain to be determined.