Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp.

Background

Paranee Sarikaputar, Phouviengsone Sysouvong, Supunnee Sukasawett, Vinai Patan, and Wipaporn Sittidej sued Veratip Corp., J Akira LLC, ThaiNY Restaurant LLC, Ninety-Nine Plus Corp., Perapong Chotimanenophan, Shue-Lee Cheng Li, Chardenpong Oonapanyo, 9999 Midtown Corp., and Michael P. Bronstein. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York General Business Law. Their allegations included failure to pay overtime and spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide required hiring notices and paystubs, inadequate breaks, requiring work during breaks, and retaliation for complaints about inadequate pay.

The plaintiffs worked for the defendants in various capacities between November 1, 2011, and December 25, 2016. The complaint alleged that Bronstein was an owner or operator who, with co-owners, shared employees, assigned work and work stations, paid employees through a corporate defendant, and participated in the restaurants’ operations as part of a unified operation.

Motion and disputed facts

Bronstein moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Bronstein asserted that he had never met or spoken with any plaintiff, had no role or authority in operating or managing the defendant restaurants, did not determine employees’ pay, and did not set their schedules. The parties agreed that he never interviewed, hired, or fired any plaintiff.

The plaintiffs submitted contrary evidence. They asserted that Bronstein was a part-owner of J Akira LLC, spoke with and instructed employees, prepared payroll, kept books and records, ensured compliance with alcohol-control laws, and supervised employees. The parties’ supporting affidavits were sworn under penalty of perjury.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that whether someone is an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act depends on the economic reality of the relationship, including whether the person could hire or fire employees, supervised or controlled their work schedules or employment conditions, determined their pay, and maintained employment records. The New York Labor Law uses a nearly identical standard.

The court found genuine factual disputes about Bronstein’s role. Those disputes involved matters central to the employer analysis, including whether he supervised employees, controlled their schedules, maintained records and accounts, and otherwise functioned as an employer. Because the affidavits presented conflicting accounts, the court could not resolve credibility questions or decide which account was true on summary judgment. The court concluded that a reasonable fact finder could determine that Bronstein was one of the plaintiffs’ employers.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Defendant Bronstein’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not decide whether Bronstein was an employer or whether he was liable for the alleged wage-law violations. It stated that those factual issues must be decided at trial and that the case was ready for trial. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report within seven days addressing how they wished to proceed, the anticipated trial length, and a proposed schedule for pretrial motions.