Andujar v. Skyc Management LLC

Background

Victor Andujar and opt-in plaintiffs Silvio Bernabel, Angel Lugo, and Juan D. Jimenez sued SKYC Management LLC, 674 Holding LTD., Shimon Greisman, and Gary Gartenberg under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. They alleged that they were current or former building superintendents and sought unpaid overtime wages and other relief.

The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). They asked the court to authorize notice to all current and former superintendents of the defendants’ buildings in New York City. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were similarly situated to other superintendents in their duties, responsibilities, hours, and pay.

Conditional Certification

The court explained that FLSA collective certification proceeds in two stages. At the first stage, the court decides whether potential plaintiffs should receive notice because they might be similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. After discovery, the court may reconsider the issue on a fuller record and decertify the collective if the opt-in plaintiffs are not actually similarly situated.

At the first stage, the plaintiffs needed to make only a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law and were similarly situated in their job responsibilities. The court does not resolve factual disputes, decide the ultimate merits, or make credibility determinations at this stage.

The court found that the plaintiffs met this low burden. Their declarations stated that the defendants’ buildings were centrally managed and that the defendants required superintendents to work more than 40 hours per week without proper compensation. The plaintiffs also stated that other superintendents performed similar superintendent and additional non-superintendent work. The court held that any minor differences in duties were not important at the conditional-certification stage.

Scope of the Collective and Notice

The court authorized notice to all superintendents of the defendants’ buildings, rather than limiting the collective to the buildings and superintendents specifically identified in the declarations. The court stated that plaintiffs seeking conditional certification did not need to identify every potential opt-in plaintiff by name.

The court permitted notice to all current and former superintendents employed by the defendants within the three years before the filing of the complaint. It declined to tie the notice period to the date of the order because of delays in briefing and resolving the motion.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for equitable tolling without prejudice. Equitable tolling can extend a filing deadline in exceptional circumstances, but the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown such circumstances for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The court left open the possibility of a later application based on an appropriate showing of exceptional circumstances and diligence.

Other Notice Requirements

The court required the notice to include defense counsel’s contact information. It also required the plaintiffs to remove references to New York law because the proposed notice did not clearly explain that the court-authorized notice concerned only the FLSA collective action claims, not any New York class action claims.

The court declined to require consent forms to be mailed to the Clerk of Court instead of plaintiffs’ counsel. It gave the defendants 21 days from the order to provide contact information for members of the conditional collective. The plaintiffs had to revise and file the proposed notice and consent form by November 22, 2024, and wait for final court approval before distributing it.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, court-authorized notice, and an order requiring the defendants to produce contact information. It ordered a joint status letter within 90 days and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 33. The order did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated the FLSA or New York Labor Law.