Hiralda Corona v. El Crucero Restaurant Corp. and Ignacio Lizardo A/K/A “Nacho”

Background

Hiralda Corona alleged that she worked for El Crucero Restaurant Corp. and Ignacio Lizardo as a server and general helper from approximately January 2024 until approximately November 2024. The opinion describes El Crucero as a restaurant in the Bronx with about 10 to 12 employees and Lizardo as its owner and/or manager, responsible for matters including discipline, scheduling, pay rates, and employment records.

Corona alleged that she commonly worked from about 3:00 p.m. until between midnight and 2:00 a.m., about five days per week. She claimed that the defendants paid her $200 per week in cash, did not pay required minimum wages, did not pay overtime at one and one-half times her regular rate, did not pay the required additional hour of minimum wage for shifts spanning more than 10 hours, and did not provide required pay notices or wage statements. She also alleged that the defendants did not track her hours or require her to record them.

Corona further alleged that Lizardo made vulgar sexual comments, touched her without consent, rubbed his erect genital area against her buttocks, and pressured her to dress more sexually to increase sales. She alleged that, after she refused, Lizardo became angry and said that her refusal would negatively affect her employment. She also alleged that she was fired after using her phone during a shift because of a family emergency, even though other employees used their phones, and that the termination was retaliation for refusing sexual harassment and opposing unlawful conduct.

Procedural History and Claims

Corona’s amended complaint asserted 11 causes of action. As summarized by the court, they included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum wages, spread-of-hours pay, pay notices, and wage statements. She also asserted gender-based hostile-work-environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, as well as retaliation claims under those laws.

The defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Corona then filed an amended complaint that added facts but no new causes of action. The court chose to consider the motion’s merits as though it were directed at the amended complaint rather than deny the motion as moot.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants argued under Rule 12(b)(1) that Corona had not shown that the restaurant had annual gross sales of at least $500,000, a requirement for one form of FLSA coverage. The court rejected that jurisdictional argument. It explained that the FLSA claims arose under federal law, giving the court federal-question jurisdiction, and that the $500,000 requirement concerned an element of the claims rather than the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. In other words, the defendants could raise the sales threshold as a defense to liability, but could not use it to remove the court’s authority to hear the claims.

The defendants also argued under Rule 12(b)(6) that Corona had not adequately pleaded the $500,000 sales requirement. The court distinguished cases in which plaintiffs made only conclusory allegations or relied only on information and belief. Corona alleged that the restaurant’s credit-card receipts ranged from $1,000 to $2,000 on weekday evenings and exceeded $3,000 to $4,000 on typical weekend days. She also alleged that the restaurant had more customers in the mornings and on weekends, received cash payments, and earned revenue from pickup and delivery orders.

Taking those allegations as true at the pleading stage, the court held that it was plausible that the restaurant’s annual gross revenue exceeded $500,000. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claims both for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to remove the motion at Docket 14 from the list of open motions. The opinion did not decide whether Corona would ultimately prove her claims; it decided only that the challenged FLSA claims could proceed past this motion-to-dismiss stage and that the court had jurisdiction over the claims in the suit.