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), the federal wage-and-hour law, and Minnesota wage and overtime laws. Wang claimed that he and other China Buffet employees worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay.

Wang sought conditional certification of an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This procedure can allow other employees who are similarly situated to opt into an employee’s lawsuit. The court had previously denied Wang’s first certification motion without prejudice because he had provided too little evidence that other employees had been denied overtime pay in the same manner.

For his second motion, Wang relied on his existing allegations and affidavits, along with a deposition of Chang Qin Lin, China Buffet’s owner and operator. Lin testified that employees worked eight hours per day for six days per week, that China Buffet did not pay overtime, and that employees shared other working arrangements described by Wang.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the more lenient first stage of the FLSA collective-action analysis, rather than the stricter second stage. Although discovery had been ongoing for more than a year and some depositions had occurred, the court found that significant discovery had not yet taken place and that Wang had not identified a large number of employees seeking to join.

Under the first-stage standard, Wang had to show a reasonable factual basis that similarly situated employees existed. The court concluded that Lin’s testimony, together with Wang’s other evidence, satisfied that requirement. In particular, Lin confirmed that China Buffet had no overtime policy and that employees consistently worked at least 48 hours per week.

The court then considered whether Wang had shown that employees were interested in opting into the case. Courts in the District of Minnesota require some evidence of opt-in interest, although they do not impose a fixed minimum number of opt-in plaintiffs. Wang had identified only one opt-in plaintiff, who was a member of his family. The court found no case granting conditional certification with so little identified interest and remained unclear whether anyone outside that employee wanted to join.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim denied Wang’s Second Motion to Certify a Conditional Class without prejudice. The court also ordered the parties to submit a joint letter to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer within 14 days proposing discovery and motion deadlines. It allowed 60 days of additional fact discovery and gave Wang 10 days after fact discovery closed to file a renewed certification motion. The court stated that another motion could be considered if Wang addressed the identified deficiencies, but it did not find that significant additional discovery time or a third certification motion was otherwise warranted.