Lopez v. Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc.

Background

Juan Lopez moved for summary judgment on his individual claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. He sued Thermo Tech Mechanical Inc., Gowkarran Budhu, and Shanti Budhu. The opinion states that Lopez worked for Thermo Tech from around June 2016 through July 30, 2018.

Before May 2018, employees used handwritten timesheets. Lopez alleged that Shanti Budhu instructed him to round down his time to the nearest half hour, causing him to omit time worked before and after scheduled shifts. He also alleged that the defendants continued to reduce his recorded time after Thermo Tech began using a global-positioning-system-based electronic timekeeping application in May 2018. Lopez cited two examples of alleged underpayment after the electronic system began.

The defendants maintained that their records accurately captured compensable work and disputed Lopez’s account. Gowkarran Budhu testified that overtime had to be authorized in advance, although he stated that after-the-fact overtime payments could be made. He also asserted that Lopez had never complained to him about being underpaid.

The action originally included FLSA claims, New York Labor Law claims, and breach-of-contract claims concerning a prevailing-wage requirement. The New York Labor Law-related claims were voluntarily dismissed by stipulation in May 2024. The individual FLSA claim was the only remaining claim when Lopez filed this motion.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute exists about any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law. A material fact could affect the result, and a genuine dispute exists when a reasonable jury could decide for the opposing party. At this stage, the court must resolve ambiguities and draw permitted factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

For an unpaid-overtime claim under the FLSA, the employee must show that he performed work for which he was not properly paid and that the employer knew, or should have known, about that work. If the employer’s time records are inaccurate or inadequate, the employee may use estimates based on personal recollection to provide a reasonable basis for determining the unpaid work. The employer may then respond with evidence of the precise amount of work or evidence undermining the reasonableness of the employee’s estimate.

The FLSA generally allows a two-year filing period, extended to three years for a willful violation. Willfulness requires that the employer knew its conduct violated the FLSA or recklessly disregarded that risk. The employee bears the burden of proving willfulness.

Court’s analysis

Work before May 2018. The court held that Lopez had not shown the absence of a genuine factual dispute. Lopez alleged that he was forced to omit time actually worked, while the defendants contended that their records were accurate, overtime was compensable, and their records captured compensable work. The court found disputes about whether Lopez worked beyond his scheduled hours, whether the defendants knew about that work, and whether the overtime was authorized or otherwise compensable. The court therefore denied the motion to the extent it sought judgment for work performed before May 2018.

Work after May 2018. The court also found a genuine dispute about the amount and extent of overtime allegedly left unpaid after electronic timekeeping began. Lopez identified two examples of underpayment for regular wages, but he did not describe a practice of rounding or time reduction that resulted in unpaid overtime for the later period and did not estimate unpaid overtime for the other relevant pay periods. The court noted that Lopez agreed the electronic system recorded his on-the-clock time precisely. Because he did not carry his burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for this period, the court denied this part of the motion as well.

Limitations period and additional issues. The court found unresolved factual disputes about whether the defendants violated the FLSA and whether any violation was willful rather than merely negligent. It rejected the idea that the failure to consult a lawyer, by itself, established willfulness. The court also noted the dispute over whether the defendants knew about or caused Lopez to underreport hours.

Because liability was not established at this stage, the court declined to decide whether Lopez could receive liquidated damages, whether both individual defendants were employers under the FLSA, or whether Gowkarran Budhu and Thermo Tech could be held jointly and separately responsible as employers.

Disposition

The court denied in its entirety Lopez’s motion for summary judgment on his individual FLSA claim. The parties were referred to the court’s mediation program, and the final pretrial conference was adjourned to May 29, 2025. The opinion states that the case remained referred to Judge Moses for general pretrial management and that the order resolved docket entry no. 134.