Wang v. Jessy Corporation

Background

Yan Ming Wang sued Jessy Corporation, doing business as China Buffet, and other defendants. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Minnesota wage and overtime laws. Wang worked as a cook at China Buffet for more than a year between 2014 and 2015. He stated that he worked about six days per week, often from 9:45 a.m. until 10 or 11 p.m., for an estimated total of more than 75 hours per week. He alleged that he was paid a flat monthly amount in cash and did not receive overtime pay.

Wang asked the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Conditional certification would have allowed court-approved notice to be sent to current and former non-managerial restaurant workers who allegedly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay.

One person, Mei Rong Sun, joined the lawsuit. Sun submitted an affidavit stating that she worked at China Buffet as a cold dish worker and waitress between 2014 and 2015, lived in the dormitory, was transported to work, worked more than 75 hours per week, and received a flat monthly cash payment without overtime. Wang and Sun each identified several people who allegedly worked similar hours, but neither had personal knowledge that most of those people were denied overtime. Each had personal knowledge that a roommate was denied overtime.

Legal standard

The court explained that FLSA collective actions allow employees to pursue claims on behalf of themselves and other employees who are similarly situated, meaning they were affected by a common unlawful decision, policy, or plan. Courts in the District of Minnesota generally use a two-stage process. At the first, or notice, stage, the plaintiff must provide a colorable basis—some factual support beyond the complaint—for believing that similarly situated employees exist. This is a lenient and non-onerous standard. The court generally does not decide witness credibility or resolve competing factual evidence at this stage.

After discovery, the court may apply a stricter standard and consider differences among the employees, individual defenses, and fairness and case-management concerns. The court concluded that the first-stage standard applied because the discovery completed so far was not extensive and only one person had joined the lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Wang’s proposed group was similar in theory: if China Buffet’s non-managerial employees worked more than 40 hours per week and were denied overtime under a common policy, they could be similarly situated. The court noted the shared dormitory and shuttle arrangements as circumstances supporting Wang’s theory of a common policy or plan.

The court nevertheless held that Wang had not provided enough evidence that the proposed group actually existed. Wang relied mainly on his and Sun’s affidavits and Sun’s participation in the case. Those affidavits described other employees’ work arrangements, hours, and monthly cash pay, but did not establish that those other employees were denied overtime. The court also noted that Wang had received names and contact information for 17 current and former non-managerial employees, yet his efforts to contact several former employees had not produced additional support.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that Wang’s motion for conditional collective-action certification was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court stated that, because discovery was continuing, Wang might later develop stronger factual support or find additional people willing to join the lawsuit. The court said it would hear another certification motion if circumstances changed.