Lee v. Nails & Spa Together, Inc.

Background

Chong Suk Lee sued Nails & Spa Together, Inc.; Nails & Spa On Second Avenue, Inc., doing business as Nails & Spa Together Nail Salon; and Heon Mee Chang, Ho Sik Chang, and Chyrim Choi. She brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law on behalf of herself and other workers. The opinion states that Lee worked as a nail technician at Nails and Spa Together from approximately January 2013 through March 15, 2024.

Lee alleged that the defendants violated federal wage laws by changing her recorded start and end times, requiring her to record fewer hours than she worked; deducting 30 minutes for lunch even when she did not take a break; and retaining 10% of her credit-card tips. She also alleged state-law violations involving spread-of-hours pay, wage notices, and wage statements. The motion addressed only her FLSA claims, not the state-law claims.

The Motion and Legal Standard

Lee asked the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective consisting of employees who worked as cosmetologists, nail technicians, skin-care technicians, eyelash-extension technicians, or in similar positions during the proposed collective period. Conditional certification is an early-stage procedure that may allow potential plaintiffs to receive notice and join an FLSA case by filing written consents.

At this stage, the plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that she and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common unlawful policy or plan. The court generally does not decide the ultimate merits, resolve factual disputes, or make credibility determinations at this stage. But unsupported or conclusory assertions are not enough. When a plaintiff relies on conversations or observations involving coworkers, the court requires enough detail to reasonably infer that those workers experienced similar conditions. Relevant details may include their names or other identifying information, job positions, hours, pay, and method of payment.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Lee adequately described the wage practices she personally experienced but did not provide enough specific evidence about other employees. Lee stated that she had spoken with coworkers about not receiving minimum wage, overtime pay, spread-of-hours compensation, or all of their tips. She did not identify any coworker, explain when or where the conversations occurred, describe what particular workers told her, or explain how she knew their hours, pay, or tip arrangements.

The court also separately considered the proposed job categories. Lee described her own duties, hours, and wages as a nail technician, but she did not describe the duties, hours, or wages of cosmetologists, skin-care technicians, eyelash-extension technicians, or workers in other unspecified positions. The court therefore concluded that she had not made the job-specific factual showing needed to include those categories.

The court reached the same conclusion for other nail technicians. Lee was the only employee who submitted a declaration, and she did not identify any other nail technician or provide descriptive facts showing that other nail technicians were subject to the same alleged practices. The court also stated that assertions based on information and belief could not support conditional certification.

Ruling

Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied Lee’s motion for conditional collective certification. Because Lee had not made the required factual showing, the court did not reach the disputes concerning the proposed FLSA collective period, the proposed notice, or equitable tolling—the request to pause the statute of limitations for potential collective members. The opinion states that the motion was denied; it does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.