Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd.

Background

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ renewed request for conditional certification and court-authorized notice under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That earlier order conditionally certified a collective consisting of sales, floor, and assistant floor managers who worked at DSMNY on or after June 3, 2018. The court did not include DSMLA employees because the plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to show that they were similarly situated to DSMLA zone managers and assistant zone managers. The plaintiffs did not appeal that order, and the time to appeal had expired.

The parties then submitted competing revisions to the proposed notice rather than one agreed version. The plaintiffs objected to the defendants’ proposal to delete the list of employer-defendants, identify Dover Street Market New York, LLC at a specified address, and use “DSM NY” instead of “Comme des Garcons” throughout the notice. The defendants responded that the earlier certification order authorized notice to employees of DSMNY and that any employment or joint-employment relationship involving the other defendants remained disputed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that whether an entity is a joint employer depends on factual findings under the economic-realities test, followed by a legal conclusion applying those facts. Because the defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ allegation that all defendants were joint employers, the court held that the notice should not predetermine that issue. The court therefore rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed revisions to the extent they would present all defendants as established joint employers.

The court nevertheless agreed with the plaintiffs that including DSMNY’s street address was unnecessary and potentially confusing. The important qualification for recipients was that they worked at DSMNY on or after June 3, 2018. The court also noted that the pleadings did not refer to the street address and that the address was not material for distributing the notice.

Disposition

The court approved the defendants’ revisions with one modification: the phrase “at 160 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York” had to be removed. It directed the parties to finalize and distribute the notice, consistent with the revised terms and the court’s orders, to the conditionally certified collective. This order concerned the notice and did not decide whether the defendants were in fact joint employers.