Solano v. Andiamo Cafe Corp
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-03264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Solano v. Andiamo Cafe Corp., Judge Netburn granted employees’ unopposed summary-judgment motion, awarding unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, statutory damages, and fees.
Anai Balbuena, Lorenzo Policao Ortega, and Gorgonio Solano received wage, liquidated-damages, interest, and statutory wage-notice awards against Andiamo Cafe Corp., Julio Vivar, and Lucio Vivar, who were held jointly and severally liable for the listed damages.
What happened
In Solano v. Andiamo Cafe Corp., three service employees alleged that Andiamo Café Corp. and its owners violated federal and New York wage laws by failing to pay minimum wages, overtime, and other required compensation. The defendants did not oppose the employees’ motion for summary judgment.
The court found that the owners were personally responsible as employers, the business was covered by the federal law, and the employees’ evidence established unpaid minimum wages, overtime, extra pay for workdays longer than ten hours, and wage-notice violations. The court awarded specified damages, nine-percent interest on actual New York-law wage damages, and $10,000 in statutory wage-notice damages to each employee.
Judge Sarah Netburn granted the motion for summary judgment. The defendants were held jointly and individually responsible for the listed damages, while attorneys’ fees and costs were left for further submissions.
The detailed version
- Solano v. Andiamo Cafe Corp · No. 1:19-cv-03264
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 17, 2020
Background
Anai Balbuena, Lorenzo Policao Ortega, and Gorgonio Solano sued Andiamo Cafe Corp., Julio Vivar, and Lucio Vivar. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), including failure to pay the required minimum wage and overtime, failure to pay New York’s extra compensation for workdays longer than ten hours, and failure to provide required wage notices and wage statements.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all claims. The defendants did not oppose the motion. Because the defendants did not respond, the court treated the plaintiffs’ supported statement of material facts as admitted, but it still reviewed the record to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Employer Liability and Coverage
The court held that Julio Vivar and Lucio Vivar were personally liable under both the FLSA and the NYLL. The undisputed evidence showed that they owned the business and had authority to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, direct the plaintiffs’ work, and maintain employment records, even though they did not keep those records.
The court also held that the plaintiffs were covered employees under both laws. Andiamo grossed at least $500,000 in the relevant years, employed about 15 people at a time, and engaged in interstate commerce, satisfying the FLSA’s enterprise-coverage requirements. The court noted that the NYLL did not require the same sales threshold or interstate-commerce connection.
Evidence of Hours and Pay
The defendants did not keep records of the plaintiffs’ employment dates, hours, or pay. The plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations describing their work schedules and salaries, along with supporting calculations. The court held that this evidence was sufficient to establish their hours and wages at the summary-judgment stage, and the defendants offered no evidence to rebut it.
Balbuena worked 57 hours per week in 2018 and 51 hours per week in 2019. She was paid $460 per week in 2018 and $440 per week in 2019, without overtime pay. Policao Ortega worked between 57.5 and 69.5 hours per week during different periods and was paid weekly salaries ranging from $460 to $580, later receiving $500 per week. Solano regularly worked at least 57 hours per week and worked 10- to 14-hour days, six to seven days per week, while receiving weekly salaries that varied over time.
Wage Violations and Damages
For minimum-wage violations, the court awarded Balbuena $4,340 and Policao Ortega $1,480 in actual damages. The court found that their regular hourly rates were below the applicable New York City minimum wages.
For overtime violations, the court awarded actual damages of $15,067.50 to Balbuena, $45,812.44 to Policao Ortega, and $168,270.75 to Solano. The FLSA and NYLL generally require a 150-percent premium for hours worked above 40 in a week, and the court found that the plaintiffs’ salaries did not include that premium.
For New York “spread of hours” violations, meaning the required extra hour of pay for a workday longer than ten hours, the court awarded Policao Ortega $3,432 and Solano $11,728.
The court found that none of the plaintiffs received the required wage notices or pay statements. It awarded each plaintiff the statutory maximum of $5,000 for wage-notice violations and $5,000 for wage-statement violations, totaling $10,000 per plaintiff.
Liquidated Damages and Interest
The court awarded liquidated damages under the NYLL only because the plaintiffs could not recover duplicative liquidated damages under both the FLSA and the NYLL for the same conduct. The defendants provided no evidence that they acted in good faith.
The liquidated-damages awards were $19,407.50 for Balbuena, $50,724.44 for Policao Ortega, and $179,998.75 for Solano. These amounts matched the applicable actual minimum-wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours damages described in the order.
The court also awarded nine-percent-per-year prejudgment interest on the plaintiffs’ actual wage damages under the NYLL, but not on liquidated damages or wage-notice damages. Interest was to run from October 20, 2018, for Balbuena; May 1, 2018, for Policao Ortega; and December 17, 2016, for Solano, through the date of the order.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the listed damages. Each plaintiff was also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, but the amount was not set in this order. Plaintiffs’ counsel was directed to file a motion for fees and costs within 30 days.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.