Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-08724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market, Judge Gorenstein ordered revised jury materials addressing unclear wage-law questions.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour case were required to address the court’s concerns and submit revised jury instructions and a verdict sheet.
What happened
In Jose Luis Bello Paulino et al. v. S & P Mini Market Corp. et al., the court found several problems in the parties’ proposed jury instructions and verdict sheet for the wage case.
The court identified unclear instructions about hourly pay, minimum wages, overtime, good faith, the statute of limitations, and a spread-of-hours claim. It also questioned whether the jury should decide claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or only under New York law, and suggested that the jury report facts rather than calculate damages.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein directed the parties to discuss these issues, file corrected jury instructions and a verdict sheet by January 7, 2025, and attend a telephone conference on January 8, 2025.
The detailed version
- Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08724
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Jan. 3, 2025
What the order addressed
The court reviewed the parties’ proposed jury charge and verdict sheet. A jury charge contains the legal instructions given to jurors, and a verdict sheet contains the questions jurors must answer. The court did not decide liability or damages. Instead, it identified problems that needed to be corrected before the materials could be used.
Problems identified by the court
The court raised nine concerns:
- The proposed instructions appeared to address the hourly rate of pay more than once.
- The verdict sheet asked whether the defendants failed to pay the required minimum wage and overtime rate before asking the jury to determine the hours worked and amounts paid.
- The court did not understand why the verdict sheet asked for a weekly rate instead of an hourly regular rate, and said the required calculations were not adequately explained.
- The instructions did not adequately explain how to determine whether the plaintiff was paid at least the required minimum wage.
- The proposed instructions did not define the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
- The verdict sheet referred to whether S&P Mini Market acted in “good faith,” but the instructions did not define or explain that concept. The court also noted that, under the federal wage law, the court—not the jury—appears to decide good faith and whether the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe its actions were lawful. The court asked the plaintiff to promptly identify any issues the plaintiff wanted the court to decide after the jury’s verdict.
- The proposed verdict sheet incorrectly told jurors to skip ahead if S&P Mini Market proved good faith. The court explained that good faith is a defense only to liquidated damages, an additional amount that may be awarded under wage laws, so jurors should not skip the rest of the section.
- The proposed materials did not explain how the federal wage law’s statute of limitations should affect the jury’s decisions.
- The instructions discussed a spread-of-hours claim, but the verdict sheet did not ask the jury any question about that claim.
Court’s suggested restructuring
The court suggested that the parties consider instructing the jury only on claims under the New York Labor Law, which the court described as more expansive and more favorable to claimants than the federal wage law. The court also suggested that the jury should make factual findings—such as the total weekly payments and hours worked for each year or relevant time period—rather than calculate the regular hourly rate, compare it with the minimum wage, or calculate amounts owed. The court could then use the jury’s factual findings to determine liability and the amount owed.
Orders and next steps
The parties were directed to contact each other immediately and discuss these issues. They were directed to file revised jury instructions and a revised verdict sheet as soon as possible, and no later than January 7, 2025. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein scheduled a telephone conference for January 8, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss the revised materials.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.