Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 6, 2024

Frazier v. FCBC Community Development Corporation

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-05270
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
12
EmploymentCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Frazier v. FCBC Community Development Corporation, Judge Subramanian denied FCBC CDC’s posttrial motions and partly granted Frazier’s fee request.

Who this affects

Kyndra Frazier and FCBC Community Development Corporation; the ruling upheld the jury verdict for Frazier and awarded her reduced attorneys’ fees and costs.

What happened

In Frazier v. FCBC Community Development Corporation, Kyndra Frazier claimed under New York’s wage law that her work as executive director of the HOPE Center was a separate job from her paid work as an associate pastor, and that FCBC CDC employed her for the HOPE Center job. A jury found for Frazier on both questions.

FCBC CDC asked the court to overturn the verdict or order a new trial. The court denied both requests, explaining that FCBC CDC had not properly preserved its main arguments before the case went to the jury and that the trial evidence gave the jury a reasonable basis to find for Frazier.

Judge Subramanian granted Frazier’s request for fees and costs in part, awarding $91,855.20 in attorneys’ fees and $3,796.27 in costs, for a total of $95,651.47.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Frazier v. FCBC Community Development Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05270
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Aug. 6, 2024

Background

Kyndra Frazier sued FCBC Community Development Corporation (FCBC CDC) under the New York Labor Law. She alleged that she was not paid minimum wages for work as executive director of the HOPE Center and was not provided required wage notices or statements. Frazier was paid for her work as associate pastor at the First Corinthian Baptist Church, but argued that her HOPE Center work was a separate job and that FCBC CDC was her employer for that work.

After a three-day jury trial, the jury answered “yes” to both questions submitted to it: whether Frazier’s HOPE Center work was a separate and distinct job from her associate-pastor role, and whether FCBC CDC was her employer for that work. Before the case went to the jury, FCBC CDC made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). After the verdict, it renewed that motion under Rule 50(b), and alternatively sought a new trial under Rule 59. Frazier separately requested attorneys’ fees and costs under New York Labor Law § 663(1).

Rule 50(b) Motion

The court denied FCBC CDC’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. First, the court held that the motion was procedurally improper because FCBC CDC’s pre-verdict motion challenged whether Frazier had separate jobs, while its post-verdict motion principally argued that the church—not FCBC CDC—was her employer. The later argument had not been raised before the case was submitted to the jury, so Frazier had not had an opportunity to address it with additional evidence.

Second, FCBC CDC relied on a joint-employer theory in its post-verdict motion, but that theory had not been litigated at trial or presented in the earlier motion. The court explained that joint employment generally allows a worker to hold more than one employer responsible for the same job; it does not establish that an employee cannot have two jobs with one employer or that two jobs must have different employers.

The court also rejected FCBC CDC’s challenges to the jury instructions and verdict form because FCBC CDC had not objected to those matters at the required time. In any event, the court concluded that the evidence supported the verdict. Evidence showed that the church gave Frazier her offer, salary, and benefits and funded the HOPE Center, but other evidence showed that FCBC CDC was legally distinct from the church, had a secular mission, and became connected with the HOPE Center around January 2020. Frazier also presented evidence that the HOPE Center work involved different duties, expanded over time, and had different supervision and counseling methods. The court held that the jury could reasonably find that the work was a separate job and that FCBC CDC employed Frazier for it.

Rule 59 Motion

The court denied FCBC CDC’s motion for a new trial. FCBC CDC argued that the jury instructions overlooked the joint-employer doctrine and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court found that the first argument was raised too late and that the jury instructions already addressed the relevant employment inquiry. The court also found that, although Frazier’s evidence was weak, FCBC CDC’s evidence was not overwhelming and the verdict was not seriously erroneous, egregious, or a miscarriage of justice.

Fees and Costs

The court granted Frazier’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in part. It calculated fees using the “lodestar,” meaning a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. The court reduced the requested hourly rates, including setting rates of $125 per hour for law students, law clerks, paralegals, and other staff; $215 per hour for associate attorney Mairead Kate Burns; $350 per hour for senior associates Alex Berke and Rosa Aliberti; and $600 per hour for partner Laurie Berke-Weiss.

The court removed certain excessive or unnecessary time entries and reduced the remaining hours by 20 percent. This produced a lodestar of $114,819. Because Frazier recovered substantially less than she sought, the court reduced the fee award by another 20 percent, resulting in $91,855.20 in attorneys’ fees. The court also awarded the unopposed $3,796.27 in costs.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian denied FCBC CDC’s motion, which included the Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 requests. The court granted Frazier’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in part and awarded a total of $95,651.47. The clerk was directed to close the docket entries for those motions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.