Taylor v. R.J.T. Motorist Service, Inc.

Background

Anthony Taylor sued R.J.T. Motorist Service, Inc. and its owner, Raymond Tartaglione. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, and conversion based on the taking of his pickup truck. The motion addressed only conditional certification of an FLSA collective for claims involving minimum wages and overtime wages.

Taylor stated that he worked as a tow-truck driver for R.J.T. from January 2018 through May 2018. He alleged that he worked twelve-hour shifts from Monday through Friday, or sixty hours per week, and received $650 per week, consisting of $100 in cash and $550 by check. He stated that his schedule, duties, and pay were essentially the same as those of other R.J.T. tow-truck drivers. Based on conversations after most paychecks, he identified Ramon Ramirez, Joe Williams, and an individual known as “Becks” or “Mr. Becks” as drivers who also did not receive overtime. Taylor also stated that he and other drivers experienced deductions when customers did not pay for services.

Conditional certification

The FLSA permits an employee to sue on behalf of himself and other employees who are similarly situated. At the first stage of the process, a court decides whether the named plaintiff has made a modest factual showing that he and potential participants were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. This stage does not resolve factual disputes or decide the merits.

The court held that Taylor met this standard. His sworn statement described his hours, work, pay, and repeated conversations with at least three other drivers about the alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and the alleged deductions. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that one affidavit was insufficient, explaining that one sufficiently detailed affidavit can support conditional certification. The court noted that later evidence could show Taylor’s experience was unique and could support a request to end the collective, but found the showing sufficient at this stage.

Scope of the collective

The court rejected Taylor’s request for a six-year lookback period based on the connection between the FLSA and New York Labor Law claims. Because the motion concerned an FLSA collective rather than class certification of the state-law claims, the court held that the applicable lookback period was three years. The period runs backward from the date notice is transmitted, not from the date the complaint was filed.

The conditionally certified collective consists of individuals who worked as tow-truck drivers for R.J.T.’s automotive servicing, auto body repair, and/or towing and road services within three years before notice is transmitted.

Equitable tolling

Taylor asked the court to pause the FLSA time limit until notice could be sent, arguing that the delay in deciding the motion could prejudice potential participants. The court denied this request. It explained that conditional certification only permits court-approved notice; potential participants do not become parties unless they file written consent forms. The court stated that it could consider tolling arguments later if potential participants joined the case and presented their own arguments.

Contact information

The court ordered Defendants to provide a computer-readable file containing potential participants’ names, titles, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment within fourteen days of the opinion. The court did not require production of compensation rates or Social Security numbers because Taylor had not shown that either was necessary to provide notice and Social Security numbers raised privacy concerns.

Notice procedures

The court approved a sixty-day period for employees to opt in, notice by first-class mail and email, a reminder notice halfway through that period, and posting notice in an area common to all employees. Defendants must file a declaration stating that the notice remained posted in that common area throughout the sixty-day period. The court did not permit text-message notice because Taylor had not shown that R.J.T. or the tow-truck-driving industry had a high employee-turnover rate. The court also rejected unannounced spot checks by Plaintiff’s counsel; a declaration of compliance would suffice.

The parties were directed to meet and confer about the notice and consent form and to file a joint letter within twenty-one days addressing their agreement or any remaining disagreements. Judge Halpern granted the motion for conditional certification, denied the request for equitable tolling, entered the contact-information and notice directives described above, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion sequence.