Lin v. La Vie en Szechuan Restaurant Corp.
- Debra Freeman
- 1:15-cv-09507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lin v. La Vie en Szechuan, Magistrate Judge Freeman corrected Huang’s overtime calculation and revised damages for Lin and Huang’s New York wage claims.
Plaintiffs Yunjian Lin and Yu Huang received revised damages calculations against defendants La Vie En Szechaun Restaurant Corp., Savour Sichuan Inc., and Yi Zhang. The order also set a process for determining attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
What happened
In Lin v. La Vie en Szechuan Restaurant Corp., plaintiffs Yunjian Lin and Yu Huang had already won findings that the defendants violated New York wage law. The court found they were owed unpaid overtime, extra pay for long workdays, additional damages, wage-notice and wage-statement penalties, and interest.
The court reconsidered one calculation involving Huang. It decided that the extra half-hour of overtime Huang worked each week should be paid at his full overtime rate, rather than only the overtime premium. The court therefore revised Huang’s damages and calculated total damages, excluding interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, at $12,168.88 for Lin and $28,189.48 for Huang.
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman sustained the plaintiffs’ objection, revised the damages calculations, and stated that prejudgment interest would be recalculated when final judgment was entered. The parties were given deadlines to stipulate to attorneys’ fees and costs or, if they could not agree, for the plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a fee application.
The detailed version
- Lin v. La Vie en Szechuan Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:15-cv-09507
- Debra Freeman
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
After a bench trial in this New York wage-and-hour case, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 7, 2020. It found that plaintiffs Yunjian Lin and Yu Huang established liability against La Vie En Szechaun Restaurant Corp., Savour Sichuan Inc., and Yi Zhang for violations of the New York Labor Law.
The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to unpaid overtime, spread-of-hours compensation, liquidated damages on unpaid wages, penalties for failures to provide required wage notices and regular wage statements, and prejudgment interest. It reserved attorneys’ fees and litigation costs for later determination.
Overtime Calculation
The court had initially calculated Huang’s compensation for one-half hour of overtime per week at the overtime premium—one-half of his regular hourly rate—instead of at the full overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to that calculation after the court announced its findings. Although the court initially overruled the objection, it reconsidered the issue and sustained the objection as legally correct.
The court stated that Huang’s regular rate was $12.69 per hour. For the 20 hours of overtime per week that he had agreed to work but was not paid for, he was entitled to the $6.35-per-hour overtime premium over 48 weeks, totaling $6,096. For the additional one-half hour per week that the court found he actually worked beyond the agreed overtime, he was entitled to the full overtime rate of $19.01 per hour over 48 weeks, totaling $456.24. The revised unpaid-overtime total for Huang was therefore $6,552.24.
Revised Damages
Using the same formulas described in its oral findings, except for the corrected rate for Huang’s additional one-half hour of weekly overtime, the court calculated damages as follows, excluding prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs:
- Lin: $2,936.44 in unpaid overtime; $1,248.00 in unpaid spread-of-hours compensation; $4,184.44 in liquidated damages; $1,300.00 in wage-notice penalties; and $2,500.00 in wage-statement penalties, for a total of $12,168.88. - Huang: $6,552.24 in unpaid overtime; $2,542.50 in unpaid spread-of-hours compensation; $9,094.74 in liquidated damages; $5,000.00 in wage-notice penalties; and $5,000.00 in wage-statement penalties, for a total of $28,189.48.
Disposition and Next Steps
The court sustained the plaintiffs’ objection and revised the damages calculation. It stated that prejudgment interest would be recalculated when final judgment was entered so that interest would run through that date. If the parties could agree on reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, they were directed to submit a stipulation by February 14, 2020. If they could not agree, plaintiffs’ counsel was directed to submit a fee application by February 21, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.