Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd.

Background

Thirteen plaintiffs brought claims for unpaid overtime and other relief against Comme Des Garçons, Ltd., Dover Street Market New York LLC, Elaine Beuther, and James Gilchrist. They alleged that Defendants misclassified sales managers, floor managers, and assistant floor managers as exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to pay them for overtime work. They also asserted New York Labor Law claims involving wage notices and wage statements.

The plaintiffs sought conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. At this stage, conditional certification allows a court to authorize notice to potentially similarly situated employees who may choose to join the case; it does not decide the ultimate merits of the overtime claims. The proposed group included sales managers, floor managers, and assistant floor managers who worked at Defendants’ New York and Los Angeles stores from June 3, 2018, through October 5, 2024. The plaintiffs also sought an order requiring Defendants to provide contact information and an order pausing the statute of limitations until notice was distributed.

Collective certification

Applying a “modest plus” standard because the parties had conducted discovery concerning conditional certification, the Court found sufficient evidence to authorize notice to sales managers, floor managers, and assistant floor managers who worked at Dover Street Market New York LLC’s New York store on or after June 3, 2018.

The Court excluded employees at the Los Angeles store. No plaintiff had worked there, the Los Angeles store was not a named Defendant, and the plaintiffs did not identify or describe Los Angeles employees who allegedly worked overtime without pay. The evidence submitted by Defendants also indicated that Los Angeles floor managers generally did not work more than 40 hours per week and that assistant floor managers who did work more than 40 hours were paid overtime.

Notice and information disclosure

The Court required the parties to revise the proposed notice and submit a redlined version for review by October 9, 2024. The notice could be sent by first-class mail and text message, and it had to include contact information for Defendants’ counsel. The Court rejected Defendants’ other requested changes concerning formatting, typeface, and references to potential participants’ legal rights.

The Court ordered Defendants to provide, by October 9, 2024, a computer-readable list containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, known email addresses, and employment dates of qualifying sales managers, floor managers, and assistant floor managers at the New York store since June 3, 2018. After court approval, potential participants would have 60 days from distribution of the notice to opt into the case.

Equitable tolling

The Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to pause the statute of limitations for all potential participants until notice was distributed. It concluded that the earlier dismissal and later reversal in the case did not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for equitable tolling. The denial was without prejudice to an individual potential participant requesting tolling based on that person’s particular circumstances.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave held that the plaintiffs’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Court conditionally certified the narrower New York-store collective, ordered notice revisions and disclosure of contact information, and denied equitable tolling without prejudice to individual requests.