West v. LaserShip

Background

Daniel West and Romaine Clarke brought a proposed class and collective action against LaserShip, Inc., So Sure Transports, Inc., Richard Grace, Richard LLC, and unnamed entities. They seek unpaid overtime and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, alleging that delivery drivers were treated as independent contractors and were not paid overtime for work exceeding 40 hours per week. The opinion does not address the claims of Ryon Morgan and Saadala Aboulessan, which were stayed pending arbitration, or the claims of Alfredo Lara, which were dismissed without prejudice to his right to pursue them in arbitration. LaserShip disputed the claims and denied liability.

The court had previously denied without prejudice a request to conditionally certify a collective covering drivers at all nine of LaserShip’s New York locations, but ordered LaserShip to provide contact information for certain drivers. After additional discovery, eight drivers consented to join the case, and Plaintiffs renewed their request. They sought certification of the broader collective, approval of a notice, additional contact information, permission to post notice at LaserShip’s New York locations, and equitable tolling of the FLSA limitations period from September 17, 2021.

Legal standard

Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, employees may join a collective action by filing written consent. At the initial stage, a court may authorize notice if plaintiffs make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were victims of a common unlawful policy or plan. Because the parties had conducted more than a year of targeted discovery, Judge Cave applied the Second Circuit’s “modest plus” standard. That standard permits consideration of evidence from both sides but does not require the court to decide the ultimate merits, resolve factual disputes, or make final credibility determinations.

Ruling on conditional certification

The Second Collective Motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court conditionally certified a collective consisting of drivers who delivered packages from LaserShip’s Maspeth and Mineola warehouses from June 17, 2018, to the present. The court found that evidence from West, Clarke, and opt-in drivers showed that drivers at those two warehouses worked comparably long hours, were paid by the package, and were not paid overtime.

The court did not conditionally certify drivers from the Albany, Buffalo, Binghamton, Newburgh, Port Chester, Rochester, and Syracuse warehouses. Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient information about drivers at those locations, including the name of a driver or communications with drivers from most of them. The court also declined to decide at this stage whether LaserShip controlled the drivers’ employment terms or was their employer or joint employer, treating those questions as merits issues for a later stage.

Notice and case management

The court authorized notice only to potential members of the narrower collective. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about revisions to the proposed notice and submit a revised notice for court review by September 19, 2025. Once approved, the notice and consent form may be sent by mail, email, and/or text message, and potential members must opt in within 60 days after distribution.

LaserShip must post the revised notice at its Maspeth and Mineola warehouses, but not at the other seven New York warehouses. The parties were also ordered to discuss whether LaserShip has any additional contact information for members of the narrower collective and, if so, a production deadline no later than November 5, 2025.

Equitable tolling and oral argument

The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ request for equitable tolling from September 17, 2021. Equitable tolling can pause a statutory deadline in rare circumstances, but the court found that Plaintiffs had not shown that potential opt-in plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence or that extraordinary circumstances prevented them from pursuing their rights. The denial does not prevent an individual plaintiff from later requesting tolling based on that person’s particular circumstances.

The court DENIED AS MOOT LaserShip’s request for oral argument. The Clerk was directed to close the Second Collective Motion and the request for oral argument.