Martinez v. Elegante Services

Background

Jordan Martinez and opt-in plaintiffs Joel Bautista, Craig Murrell, Rafael Ojeda, Cornelio Mayor, Joel Burgos, and Geovanny Madera Rodriguez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They alleged that Elegante Services, Inc., Jose Viloria, and Angela Pratts used a company-wide practice of automatically deducting meal-break time even when workers did not receive or take a break. They also alleged that some workers were not paid for regular or overtime hours.

The plaintiffs asked the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action, require production of contact information for potential members, approve proposed notices and reminder notices, and pause the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The parties had conducted about a year of discovery, including exchanging payroll records, time records, declarations, and interrogatory responses.

Conditional certification

The court applied the “modest plus” standard because the parties had substantially conducted discovery. At this first stage, the plaintiffs had to make a modest factual showing that they and other workers were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The court did not resolve factual disputes, decide the ultimate wage claims, or determine witness credibility.

The court found that the plaintiffs met that standard. Several declarations stated that workers regularly worked through automatically deducted meal breaks without compensation and that management was informed. Declarations also described other workers who allegedly experienced the same practice and failures to receive overtime pay. The court treated the parties’ conflicting interpretations of payroll records as a factual dispute that could not be resolved at this stage.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the automatic deduction policy was, by itself, lawful and therefore could not support certification. The court explained that automatic deductions are not automatically illegal, but an employer may violate the FLSA when it knows or should know that employees worked through meal breaks and did not pay them. The court also declined to include the proposed “laborer” category because the plaintiffs did not show that the position existed or shared similar job duties or pay provisions with the other positions.

The court therefore granted conditional certification for workers employed by Elegante Services as non-exempt, hourly-paid medical transportation drivers, drivers, or helpers. The opinion states that the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification was granted in part and denied in part.

Notice and information production

The court approved a notice period reaching back six years from the March 19, 2024 filing date, to March 19, 2018, because potential New York Labor Law claims might otherwise become time-barred. It granted the undisputed request for a 60-day period to opt into the action.

The plaintiffs and defendants were directed to meet and confer about the notice. The revised notice must include defense counsel’s contact information and omit references to New York state law. The court otherwise allowed the proposed consent-form language, contingency-fee language, discovery language, and allegation concerning unpaid overtime.

The court authorized distribution of the notice by mail, email, and text message, and required an English and Spanish version. It also granted the request for reminder notices 30 days after the original mailing, subject to revisions explaining that opt-in plaintiffs may choose their own lawyers and reminding them about discovery and document-preservation obligations.

The defendants must provide, in electronic form if practicable, the names, mailing addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, cellular phone numbers, employment dates, positions, and primary languages of potential collective members employed from March 19, 2018, through the present. The defendants do not have to provide compensation rates.

Equitable tolling

The court denied the request to pause the statute of limitations from the initial conference date or the filing of the certification motion. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing and had not identified a potential plaintiff whose claim was already time-barred.

Deadlines and disposition

The plaintiffs were ordered to file a revised proposed notice by December 23, 2025. The defendants were ordered to produce the required contact and employment information by January 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the plaintiffs’ motion docket entry.

Judge Ona T. Wang’s order addressed whether notice should be sent to potentially similarly situated workers; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the alleged wage violations.