Asencio v. Iris Spa in North Castle Corp.

Background

Reina Asencio sued Iris Spa in North Castle Corp., Iris Spa in Armonk Corp., and Minkwan Choe under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). She alleged that the defendants failed to pay the required minimum and overtime wages, provide a required wage notice, and provide proper wage statements.

Asencio said she worked at the North Castle location from 2008 through 2020. She claimed that she generally worked five to six days per week, began work at about 9:20 a.m., left at about 7:00 p.m., and rarely received a break of at least 30 minutes. She stated that she was paid $60 per day in 2015 and 2016, $65 per day in 2017, $70 per day in 2018, and $80 per day in 2019 and 2020. She also claimed that she never received a wage notice or accurate wage statements.

Choe disputed parts of Asencio’s account. He said he had limited involvement in the North Castle spa’s operations, was not Asencio’s direct manager, and was present at the spa only briefly about three times per week. He also stated that employees recorded their own hours and breaks and maintained that it was impossible for Asencio to have worked more than 40 hours per week.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

For the minimum-wage and overtime claims, the court found that the defendants kept inaccurate or incomplete records. The court cited evidence that a time sheet showed Asencio did not work on a particular Friday while text messages showed that she arranged transportation to work that day. The court also noted that the defendants’ payroll records and wage statements listed different hourly rates.

Because the records were unreliable, the court held that Asencio could rely on her own recollection to establish a reasonable basis for her wage claims. The court found that her sworn testimony about working five to six days per week for approximately nine and a half hours per day, together with the transportation-related text messages, met that burden. The burden then shifted to the defendants to provide evidence of the precise hours worked or to show that Asencio’s account was unreasonable.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet that burden. It determined that the wage statements could not rebut Asencio’s claims because the statements were inaccurate. It also found Choe’s testimony too general, unsupported, and inconsistent to establish the precise amount of work Asencio performed or to undermine the reasonableness of her account. The court further stated that an employer’s duty to maintain accurate records cannot be delegated to the employee merely because the employee is required to submit time sheets.

Regarding the wage-notice claim, the court found that Asencio alleged she never received the notice required by New York Labor Law § 195(1)(a), and that the defendants did not meaningfully respond to that allegation. The defendants’ argument that Asencio was paid weekly at an hourly rate and knew about yearly raises did not address whether they provided the required notice. The court therefore granted summary judgment on that claim.

Regarding the wage-statement claim, the court found that the defendants’ statements omitted the employer’s address, telephone number, deductions, and allowances. The statements also contained inaccurate hours and pay rates. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that substantial compliance or good faith was sufficient, stating that the statute required compliance with all of the listed requirements. The court therefore granted summary judgment on that claim as well.

Relief and ruling

The court awarded Asencio $133,151.80 in liquidated damages related to unpaid minimum and overtime wages. It also awarded $5,000 for the wage-notice violation and $5,000 for the wage-statement violation, for a total of $143,151.80 in damages identified for entry of judgment.

The court awarded $43,513.00 in prejudgment interest and stated that New York’s interest rate was 9 percent per year. It directed that interest be calculated from November 26, 2017, to the date of judgment. The court did not calculate attorney’s fees and costs because Asencio’s counsel had not submitted time records and expense documentation. It directed counsel to file a motion with the required documentation by March 7, 2025.

Judge Nelson S. Román granted Asencio’s motion for summary judgment on her minimum-wage, overtime, wage-notice, and wage-statement claims. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Asencio against the defendants and to terminate the action, with attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded after the required filing.