Huggins v. Wiener
- Paul Crotty
- 1:18-cv-01037
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Huggins v. Wiener, Judge Crotty granted in part Huggins’s request to notify potential collective members under federal wage law, leaving tolling and employer status undecided.
Alejandro Huggins, opt-in plaintiff Clinton Jack, potential collective members who may have been current or former building superintendents employed by Chestnut Holdings Inc., 1425 U LLC, or Jonathan Wiener, and those defendants. The parties were required to confer about contact information and a notice and consent form.
What happened
In Huggins v. Wiener, Alejandro Huggins asked the court to conditionally approve a group case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. He alleged that the defendants failed to pay him minimum wage and overtime and that other building superintendents experienced the same alleged violations.
The court found that Huggins and other plaintiffs provided enough information at this early stage to suggest that additional superintendents may have been affected by a common pay policy or plan. The court did not decide whether the defendants actually violated the law.
Judge Paul A. Crotty granted the request for conditional certification in part. The court postponed decisions about whether the defendants were joint employers and whether the filing deadline should be extended until more evidence was gathered, and directed the parties to work on contact information and a notice form for potential participants.
The detailed version
- Huggins v. Wiener · No. 1:18-cv-01037
- Paul Crotty
- May 29, 2020
Background
Alejandro Huggins moved for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The proposed collective consisted of current and former superintendents of residential apartment buildings owned by Chestnut Holdings Inc., 1425 U LLC, and Jonathan Wiener, who worked for the defendants between February 6, 2012, and the present and allegedly were not paid as required by the FLSA.
Huggins submitted a declaration alleging that the defendants failed to pay him minimum wage and overtime. He also described conversations with two superintendents at other buildings owned by the defendants who allegedly experienced the same violations. Opt-in plaintiff Clinton Jack made similar allegations and described discussions with two additional superintendents. Declarations from Zenon De La Rosa and George Nieves also supported the request.
Legal standard
The court explained that FLSA collective actions use a two-stage process. At the first stage, the plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential participants were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. If notice is allowed, the court later considers, after more factual development, whether the participants are actually similarly situated.
Ruling
The court held that Huggins made the required modest factual showing. The declarations and accounts of other superintendents were enough to indicate that a broader group may have been subject to the same alleged FLSA violations. The court therefore granted the motion for conditional certification in part.
The defendants argued that they were not joint employers of the plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA. Huggins and the other plaintiffs separately requested equitable tolling, meaning an extension of the FLSA limitations period, from October 30, 2018, through the date of the order. The court stated that it could not decide either issue until further discovery and would consider them at the second stage of the collective-action process.
Next steps
The court directed the parties to meet and confer about disclosing contact information for potential opt-in members and preparing a notice and consent form to submit jointly by July 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 61.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.