DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A.

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims against their former employer, Valentino U.S.A., Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They sought unpaid wages, overtime, and liquidated damages. The pending motion asked the court to certify two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

1. A proposed Full-Time Employee Class consisting of non-executive full-time employees paid less than $100,000 annually who worked at Valentino’s New York corporate office from December 13, 2013, onward. 2. A proposed Freelancer Class consisting of freelance employees who worked in New York and were paid a day rate between December 13, 2013, and December 16, 2015.

The plaintiffs alleged that Valentino used unlawful common policies. For the Full-Time Employee Class, they alleged that employees were improperly denied overtime. For the Freelancer Class, they alleged that workers were improperly classified as independent contractors.

The court had previously denied certification of the case as a collective action. The parties later filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court largely denied. In that ruling, the court stated that determining whether particular workers were misclassified or entitled to overtime required examining their individual circumstances.

Legal standard

Rule 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy several requirements, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. Numerosity asks whether the class is large enough that joining every member individually would be impractical. Commonality asks whether class members share important legal or factual questions that can be resolved with common proof. Typicality asks whether the named plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same events and legal theories as the class claims. For a class seeking damages under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must also predominate over questions affecting only individual members.

The plaintiffs had to prove these requirements with evidence, not merely allegations.

Full-Time Employee Class

The court held that the plaintiffs had not established numerosity. Their evidence included a salary review report listing 286 employees, but the relevant information was largely redacted. The report did not show why employees’ compensation changed, their salaries, their locations, or whether they fit the proposed class definition. Valentino’s discovery responses identified at least 15 employees reclassified in 2019 and about 40 employees who worked during or after December 2013 but left before the 2019 reclassification. Those responses also did not establish the employees’ salaries, locations, or reasons for reclassification. An email stating that Valentino had 84 full-time corporate employees likewise did not show how many fit the proposed class.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish commonality, typicality, and predominance. The named full-time plaintiffs held different jobs in different departments. Determining whether each worker was entitled to overtime would therefore require individualized analysis of job duties, compensation, and discretion.

The plaintiffs argued that Valentino had a uniform policy of awarding additional compensation, including “comp days,” and that this policy affected overtime eligibility. The court found that the evidence did not show a uniform or nearly uniform practice across the proposed class. It also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that Valentino’s policies or practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or New York Labor Law. Valentino’s 2019 reclassification of some employees, standing alone, was not enough to establish a common unlawful policy.

The court further found that the proposed class members had different roles, reporting structures, and duties across nine departments. The available evidence did not allow the court to determine whether individual employees were eligible for overtime or retroactive compensation. These differences meant that the relevant questions were likely to require employee-specific answers.

Freelancer Class

The court likewise held that the plaintiffs had not established numerosity for the proposed Freelancer Class. The plaintiffs relied on testimony that there was substantial freelancer turnover and an email stating that Valentino paid about 30 to 50 independent contractors or freelancers in a given month. But the evidence did not show how many freelance employees worked during the specific class period or how many were paid a day rate.

The court also found that the proposed Freelancer Class did not meet the commonality, typicality, or predominance requirements. Under New York law, whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor depends on the facts, including the employer’s actual control over the work. Relevant circumstances include the worker’s schedule, ability to work elsewhere, benefits, placement on the employer’s payroll, and method of compensation.

The court’s earlier summary-judgment analysis had been unable to determine the employment relationships of Brereton and Crawford based on the available evidence. The plaintiffs did not show that their duties overlapped with each other or with other potential class members. The court concluded that deciding whether each freelancer was misclassified would require an individual examination of the control Valentino exercised over that person.

The plaintiffs’ additional evidence—including hiring documents for two plaintiffs, discovery responses, and deposition testimony—did not address several relevant factors. It did not show whether the workers set their own schedules, worked for other companies, or set their own pay rates. It also lacked sufficient salary, geographic, and identifying information to show that Valentino exercised similar control over all freelancers.

Disposition

Because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy numerosity and also failed to establish commonality, typicality, and predominance, the court denied the Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The court did not dismiss the wage claims in this opinion. It directed the parties to confer about trial availability in September, October, or November 2025 and about settlement, possible referral to a magistrate judge, or participation in mediation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and to terminate Plaintiff Alicia Learmont, Valentino’s counterclaims against her, and her related counterclaim status from the case.