Sarit v. Westside Tomato, Inc.

Background

Ruth Sarit sued Westside Tomato, Inc., doing business as Arte Café; Robert Malta; Marc, whose last name was unknown; and Ernesto Matias Lopez. She also identified unnamed defendants. Sarit alleged that she worked as a waitress at Arte Café and was paid a combination of an hourly amount and cash tips. She claimed that the restaurant delayed or withheld wages, including by announcing a change from weekly to biweekly pay while allegedly deferring payments and missing some pay periods.

Sarit also alleged that Lopez made derogatory comments about her Dominican national origin, physically pushed her and later struck her, and that she reported the conduct to Marc. She claimed Marc took no action and that Arte Café terminated her about one week after her later complaint. She asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and New York battery law.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Sarit’s favor. The court did not rely on facts outside the complaint that contradicted those allegations.

Wage Claims

Sarit clarified that her Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims were based on alleged failures to pay wages when due, rather than only on ordinary minimum-wage or overtime calculations. The court explained that the Fair Labor Standards Act includes a requirement that wages be paid promptly, and that the New York Labor Law requires timely payment on regular paydays.

The court held that Sarit plausibly alleged violations by Arte Café. Her allegations that the restaurant delayed payments, missed some weeks, paid as much as twelve days after the work was performed, withheld wages on at least one occasion, and changed the pay schedule because it lacked sufficient funds were enough to proceed at the pleading stage. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims against Arte Café.

The court dismissed those wage claims against Malta and Marc because Sarit did not plead enough facts showing that either individual was an employer under the statutes. The court noted that she did not allege that Malta or Marc had authority to hire or fire workers, control work schedules or working conditions, set pay, or maintain employment records. The court allowed Sarit to amend these claims against Malta and Marc if she had a good-faith basis to do so.

Title VII Retaliation Claim

The court dismissed Sarit’s Title VII retaliation claim against Malta and Marc because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII. The court dismissed those claims with prejudice.

As to Arte Café, the court held that Sarit plausibly alleged the elements of retaliation. It found that her repeated complaints to Marc about national-origin harassment could qualify as protected activity, that the employer had knowledge of those complaints, that her termination was a materially adverse action, and that the close timing between her complaints and termination plausibly suggested a causal connection. The court therefore allowed the Title VII retaliation claim against Arte Café to proceed.

Battery Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Sarit’s battery claim against Lopez. Sarit alleged that Lopez pushed her and later struck her in the back. The court held that these allegations plausibly described intentional, harmful, or offensive physical contact under New York law.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Arte Café and Lopez. It granted the motion as to Malta and Marc. Sarit was permitted to amend her Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims against Malta and Marc if she had a good-faith basis to do so. The Title VII claims against Malta and Marc were dismissed with prejudice. The court also warned that it might impose sanctions if the defendants failed to cooperate or participate in good faith in the case, including by failing to meet and confer about next steps.