Lauriano v. Lucky Chicken Corp.

Background

Tina Marie Lauriano sued Lucky Chicken Corp., Pinder Paul, and Rajinder Paul under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Lauriano worked at Lucky Chicken as a cashier, stocker, and cleaner from approximately 2010 until November 2022. Because of the applicable time limits for bringing claims, her claims covered only the period beginning in October 2017. She alleged that the defendants failed to pay minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation, and failed to provide required wage statements and written notices.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the claim and the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. The motion argued that Rajinder Paul was not Lauriano’s employer under the FLSA or NYLL during the relevant period.

Legal standard

Under both statutes, an individual is an employer when the person has control over the company’s operations in a way related to the employee’s work. Courts evaluate that question using four overlapping, nonexclusive factors: whether the person had power to hire or fire employees; supervised or controlled work schedules or employment conditions; determined pay rates or payment methods; and maintained employment records. No single factor is decisive, and ownership alone does not establish employer status without involvement in the company’s employment of workers.

Court’s analysis

The parties disputed whether Rajinder owned Lucky Chicken and who sold the business in November 2022. The court held that even if Rajinder was an owner, ownership by itself was insufficient to make him Lauriano’s employer.

The court found no genuine dispute that three of the four factors did not support employer status during the relevant period. Lauriano said Rajinder hired her around 2010, but she did not dispute that he had not been responsible for hiring or firing employees since at least 2017. She also said Rajinder told her her pay rate when he hired her, but did not claim that he determined her or other employees’ pay after 2017. As to employment records, Lauriano said she saw Rajinder enter an office containing business and employee paperwork, but the court found no evidence that he maintained those records.

The parties disputed the second factor: whether Rajinder supervised or controlled employee schedules or working conditions. Lauriano said Rajinder sometimes asked her to cover shifts, directed her duties, discussed schedules with employees, directed workers to stock supplies, and visited the restaurant about twice a week. Rajinder said that since at least 2017 he had rarely been at Lucky Chicken, did not supervise employee performance or schedules, and generally visited only to get a meal. Lauriano also testified that Pinder Paul directed her duties and provided her schedule most of the time, particularly toward the end of her employment.

The court concluded that, even viewing the evidence in Lauriano’s favor, her evidence showed at most some influence by Rajinder and did not establish meaningful control over her work schedules or employment conditions. The court further stated that even if the second factor more clearly favored Lauriano, the absence of the other three factors would still justify judgment for Rajinder. It also explained that ownership combined with some employee supervision was not enough on this record to establish individual liability.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. It ruled that Rajinder Paul was not Lauriano’s employer under the FLSA or NYLL during the relevant period and terminated the docket entry for that motion. The opinion does not state the disposition of Lauriano’s claims against Lucky Chicken Corp. or Pinder Paul.