Anchahua v. Carlin

Background

Edison Anchahua and Franklin Anchahua sued M D Building Services, Inc., doing business as Meridian Building Services, and Michael K. Carlin. The complaint alleges that the defendants employed Edison and Franklin as porters and required them to work more than 40 hours per week without paying the overtime premium required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint also alleges that the defendants deducted two to five hours per week from employees’ pay, including hours that would have been overtime hours. The plaintiffs asserted FLSA claims and claims under the New York Labor Law.

The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. At this initial stage, conditional certification allows potentially similarly situated workers to receive notice and choose whether to join the FLSA case. The plaintiffs proposed a collective covering all non-exempt employees, including several categories of workers, employed by the defendants in New York State during the six years before the complaint was filed. They also asked the court to approve their proposed notice, require production of information about potential opt-in plaintiffs, allow consent forms to be sent to their counsel, and pause the FLSA limitations period while notice was being sent.

Conditional Certification

The court held that the plaintiffs made the modest factual showing required at the initial certification stage. Their declarations identified specific instances in which they allegedly worked overtime without receiving overtime premiums, named other workers who allegedly experienced the same pay practices, and described their observations and conversations with coworkers. The court also considered time and pay records supporting the allegation that Meridian paid the same straight-time rate when employees worked overtime.

The court conditionally certified a collective consisting of cleaners, porters, and janitors employed by Meridian in New York State at any time during the three-year period ending when the complaint was filed. The court rejected the proposed broader categories because the plaintiffs’ evidence concerned only cleaners, porters, and janitors. The court used a three-year period because the complaint alleged willful FLSA violations, while noting that it was premature to decide whether the alleged violations were willful. The court also stated that the three-year period did not prevent the defendants from later challenging the timeliness of individual opt-in plaintiffs or seeking decertification.

The FLSA notice and consent process applies only to FLSA claims. It does not make recipients members of a New York Labor Law class or authorize plaintiffs’ counsel to pursue New York Labor Law claims for them individually.

Notice

The court authorized distribution of the notice by first-class mail, email, and text message. It required the plaintiffs to remove language suggesting that time-shaving, standing alone, was an independent basis for recovery under the FLSA. The court explained that the FLSA does not provide a claim for unpaid straight-time hours when the employee received at least the federal minimum wage; the notice could seek unpaid overtime premiums, including overtime affected by time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court required the notice to include defense counsel’s contact information and to tell potential plaintiffs who join the case not to contact the defendants’ lawyers directly. The court set a 60-day period to opt in rather than the 90-day period proposed by the plaintiffs. The court did not require removal of references to New York Labor Law claims because the notice made clear that consent to join applied only to the FLSA claims.

Equitable Tolling

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for equitable tolling. Equitable tolling can pause a statutory deadline in appropriate circumstances, but the court held that filing the FLSA case or the certification motion did not automatically stop the FLSA limitations period. The court stated that it would consider tolling later if an individual potential plaintiff presented facts showing diligence and a basis for tolling.

Information About Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs

The court allowed discovery of the names, mailing addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment of members of the putative collective. It denied the request for Social Security numbers because the plaintiffs had not shown that ordinary contact information would be insufficient to provide notice. It also denied the request for compensation rates because those rates were not needed to provide notice and could create privacy concerns.

Consent Forms and Disposition

The court permitted potential opt-in plaintiffs to send their consent forms directly to the plaintiffs’ counsel. It ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file each form on the electronic docket no later than two days after receiving it, which would also promptly inform the defendants of the opt-ins.

The court concluded that the motion for conditional collective certification was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry.