Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-08502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Judge Failla denied Sanchez’s request for an early appeal, without prejudice, and ordered more information about collective-action notice.
Rodney Sanchez, the defendants, and employees who may be included in or excluded from notice of the FLSA collective action, particularly employees subject to the 2022 amendment or 2023 collective bargaining agreement who may have worked outside those agreements’ scope.
What happened
In Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc., Rodney Sanchez sought permission to immediately appeal part of an earlier order limiting notice to potential members of a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case. The earlier order excluded employees covered by certain arbitration agreements.
Sanchez argued that courts disagree about whether employees with arbitration agreements may receive notice of a wage collective action. Clipper Realty argued that the earlier decision involved the Court’s discretion and did not present the kind of legal question that can be appealed before the case ends.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Sanchez’s motion for an early appeal, without prejudice to renewing it later. She ordered the defendants to explain how they identified employees excluded from notice and whether those employees performed work outside the arbitration agreements’ scope.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08502
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage-and-hours case concerns Rodney Sanchez’s claims against Clipper Realty, Inc., doing business as Clipper Realty, and other defendants. In an earlier decision, the Court held that Sanchez was not bound by March 2022 and 2023 collective-bargaining-agreement amendments requiring arbitration of disputes under federal, state, or local law, including the FLSA and New York Labor Law.
The Court later conditionally certified an FLSA collective action, meaning a group of similarly situated employees who may receive notice and choose to participate. The Court limited the collective to certain job categories and buildings. It also excluded employees bound by the 2022 amendment or the 2023 collective bargaining agreement. The Court approved a revised notice and directed briefing on Sanchez’s proposed interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal before the case reaches a final judgment.
The Motion
Sanchez argued that the Court’s recognition of disagreement among district courts about including employees subject to arbitration agreements in FLSA collectives showed that the issue involved a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement, and an immediate appeal that could materially advance the litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The defendants argued that conditional certification was discretionary and that Sanchez had not shown the requirements for an interlocutory appeal.
The Court agreed that there was disagreement among courts in the Second Circuit and that the Second Circuit had not decided the issue. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that a conditional-certification decision could never qualify for interlocutory appeal. But the Court identified a more basic problem with its earlier order: it had not adequately addressed Sanchez’s argument that employees subject to the 2022 amendment or 2023 agreement might also have worked at buildings or in roles not covered by those agreements.
The defendants stated that employees were excluded only if they were subject to the 2022 amendment or 2023 agreement, and that employees who were not covered because they worked at another building or for another reason would receive notice. The Court concluded that it needed to determine how the notice list was created and whether the excluded employees performed any work outside the agreements’ scope.
Disposition
The Court DENIED Sanchez’s motion for interlocutory appeal, without prejudice to later renewal. It directed the defendants to file a supplemental submission about the scope of the notice issues by April 4, 2025, and allowed Sanchez to respond by April 18, 2025. The Court stated that, depending on the information received, it may reconsider its earlier restrictions on notice. It did not decide in this order whether the notice restrictions should ultimately change.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.