Jackson v. ProAmpac LLC

Background

Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo brought the action for themselves and other similarly situated employees against ProAmpac LLC, Ampac Holdco Inc., and Ampac Paper, LLC. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs worked in non-supervisory positions at ProAmpac’s Walden facility, including positions in the converting department. They alleged that ProAmpac required employees to scan in five to fifteen minutes before shifts, but used a time-rounding policy that did not pay employees for all time worked and did not pay required overtime when employees worked more than 40 hours in a week. They also alleged that employees had to buy additional steel-toed boots and that operators had to buy tools, reducing their effective wages below the required minimum wage. Finally, they alleged that wage statements did not accurately show hours worked or the employer’s legal name.

The pending matters were ProAmpac’s motion to dismiss the NYLL § 193 and § 195 claims and the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. The proposed collective included current and former non-supervisory employees in the converting or printing departments at the Walden facility from April 15, 2019, through final judgment.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted ProAmpac’s partial motion to dismiss. As to the NYLL § 193 claim, the plaintiffs alleged that required purchases of safety equipment and tools unlawfully reduced their wages. The court explained that employers generally need not reimburse business expenses under New York law unless failing to do so reduces an employee’s pay below the minimum wage. The complaint did not provide sufficient details about how much the plaintiffs spent, how often they incurred the expenses, or how the expenses reduced their wages. The court therefore dismissed the NYLL § 193 claim without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

As to the NYLL § 195 wage-statement claim, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, including constitutional standing. The court held that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege a concrete injury caused by the inaccurate statements. Their alleged delay in enforcing wage rights showed an interest in the information only for bringing the lawsuit, not for using it beyond the lawsuit. The court also concluded that the alleged monetary injury was caused by the rounding policy and underpayment, rather than by the inaccurate wage statements themselves. It therefore dismissed the NYLL § 195 claim without prejudice.

Conditional Certification of the FLSA Collective

The FLSA permits employees to sue on behalf of themselves and other employees who are similarly situated. At the first, conditional-certification stage, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in employees were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court does not ordinarily decide the ultimate merits, resolve factual disputes, or make credibility determinations at this stage.

The court found that the plaintiffs met this modest burden for current and former non-supervisory employees in the converting department. The plaintiffs provided information about their duties and hours based on personal experience and daily observations. They alleged that converting-department employees were subject to the same rounding policy, and ProAmpac did not dispute that the policy applied to other employees in that department. ProAmpac argued that time records showed employees often punched in near their scheduled start times and that rounding sometimes benefited employees. The court nevertheless found that the records corroborated the plaintiffs’ position that they were not paid for every minute worked. Its review of records for Jackson, Perez, and Gallardo showed that each worked dozens of hours more than the hours for which they were paid.

The court did not conditionally certify the equipment-and-tools claim. The plaintiffs’ evidence about other employees’ expenses consisted mainly of statements that they had overheard workers discussing such expenses. The plaintiffs did not identify the workers or the statements, or provide information about the amounts, frequency, or effect of those expenses on other employees’ wages. The court also excluded printing-department employees because the plaintiffs provided no sufficient information about their duties, supervisors, policies, or working conditions, and no adequate basis for applying the plaintiffs’ personal observations to that department.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the conditional-certification motion. It granted certification for current and former non-supervisory converting-department employees concerning the claims that ProAmpac failed to pay for all hours worked and failed to pay overtime on that unpaid time. It denied certification for non-supervisory printing-department employees and for the FLSA claim concerning reimbursement for required work equipment and tools.

Notice Period and Notice Procedures

The court authorized a three-year notice period. It declined to authorize the plaintiffs’ requested six-year period, even though the NYLL may involve a longer limitations period, because no NYLL class-certification motion was then pending and a six-year notice could create confusion about different limitations periods. The court also concluded that the three-year period should run from the filing of the complaint rather than from the date each opt-in employee filed a consent, in part because of the delay in ruling on conditional certification and possible equitable-tolling issues.

The court ordered ProAmpac to provide the plaintiffs’ counsel, by October 16, 2023, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet listing potential opt-in plaintiffs who were current or former non-supervisory converting-department employees on or after April 15, 2019. The spreadsheet was required to include names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment.

The court approved notice by mail, email, text message, and WhatsApp, as well as posting at the Walden facility. It permitted the notice to be translated into Spanish but denied permission to post it on plaintiffs’ counsel’s website. The court required the notice to explain that people who join may be asked to provide testimony and information about their work, and to include defense counsel’s contact information. It set a 60-day opt-in period but allowed the plaintiffs to send a reminder halfway through that period. The parties were ordered to submit a revised notice and consent form for approval on or about November 6, 2023.

Disposition

The court granted ProAmpac’s partial motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ NYLL § 193 and § 195 claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, with the specific inclusions and exclusions described above. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions. The order was signed by Judge Nelson S. Roman.