Neor v. Acacia Network, Inc.

Background

Giitou Neor and Tyrone Wallace brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against Acacia Network, Inc., Acacia Network Housing Inc., Promesa Residential Health Care Facility, Inc., and John Doe Corporations 1-100. They alleged that employees were not paid for work performed during automatically deducted meal breaks or after scheduled shifts, and that the defendants’ timekeeping practices rounded or reduced employees’ recorded time. The plaintiffs sought unpaid wages, overtime, statutory amounts, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a statewide FLSA collective action. They proposed including current and former hourly, non-exempt employees in various positions and sought coverage for the six years before the third amended complaint. Thirty-seven people had opted into the action as of March 20, 2025. The supporting evidence included declarations from Neor, Wallace, and opt-in plaintiffs describing unpaid meal-break and post-shift work, as well as testimony from Acacia’s human-resources and payroll personnel about automatic meal deductions, timekeeping practices, and policies concerning work outside scheduled hours.

Legal standard

Under the FLSA, an employee may sue for themselves and other employees who are similarly situated and who consent in writing to join the case. At the first, or notice, stage, the court applies a relatively lenient standard and asks whether the plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The court does not resolve factual disputes, decide the ultimate wage claims, or determine witness credibility at this stage. After discovery, the court may reconsider whether the employees are actually similarly situated and may decertify the collective.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently shown, for purposes of conditional certification, that the defendants operated as a single integrated enterprise. The evidence identified common control, management, human-resources functions, recruiting, personnel, payroll, and wage policies across the defendants’ entities and locations.

The court also found sufficient evidence that employees in different positions may have been subject to common practices involving unpaid meal-break work, unpaid post-shift work, and time rounding or time shaving. Evidence from the plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs described work performed during deducted meal periods and after scheduled shifts. Acacia’s human-resources and payroll witnesses testified that the organization did not track actual lunch hours, used automatic meal deductions, and had policies concerning employees’ clock-in and clock-out times. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiffs’ allegations were not credible or that individual questions would require denial at this stage because those arguments concerned the merits of the underlying FLSA claims.

The court approved a statewide collective because the plaintiffs worked at five locations, the defendants were sufficiently shown at this stage to have common ownership and control, and testimony indicated that wage policies for non-exempt employees were the same across locations. The court also held that differences in job duties did not defeat conditional certification because the alleged pay practices applied across positions.

Scope, notice, and contact information

The court limited the collective’s time period. Although the plaintiffs sought six years, the court applied the FLSA’s three-year period for alleged willful violations because no New York state class action had been certified in this case. The court conditionally certified the proposed statewide collective only as to hourly employees who worked during the three years preceding the filing of the original complaint.

The court granted equitable tolling through the date notice is issued, provided that the named plaintiffs proceed with reasonable diligence. Equitable tolling pauses the limitations period for the affected potential opt-in plaintiffs during that period. The court also granted the request for a Spanish-language version of the notice. It granted the defendants’ unopposed requests to revise the notice and directed the plaintiffs to submit an amended notice of pendency.

The court granted the request for employee information in limited form. The defendants must provide the names, employment dates, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and known telephone numbers of non-exempt employees employed during the three years preceding the filing of the original complaint. The court did not identify a basis at that stage for requiring disclosure of job titles or compensation rates.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and related relief was granted in part and denied in part. The court conditionally certified the statewide FLSA collective only within the stated three-year period, granted equitable tolling pending notice, approved the Spanish notice, granted the defendants’ unopposed notice revisions, and ordered the limited contact-information production. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.