Djurdjevich v. Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.

Background

Mirko Djurdjevich sued Flat Rate Movers, Ltd., Sam Gholam, Israel Carmel, and John Does #1–10, asserting employment-law violations under federal and state law. The case also included opt-in plaintiffs Dordije Bacovic and Dorde Bulut under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour statute. The opinion states that Najdan Nikolic’s claim had previously been dismissed without prejudice.

Djurdjevich worked for Flat Rate as a driver and foreman from 2006 to 2008. In 2010, he began performing work for Flat Rate through D&M Corporation and later formed Big M Delivery Corporation, which entered into a subcontractor agreement with Flat Rate. Djurdjevich contended that Flat Rate required him to form the corporation and that he was hired as an employee rather than as a subcontractor. Flat Rate contended that he was an independent contractor.

Bacovic and Bulut worked on moving crews associated with Djurdjevich and Big M. The parties disputed whether the crew members were employees of Big M, employees of Flat Rate, or otherwise managed by Flat Rate. They also disputed who controlled the workers, who paid them, and whether Flat Rate provided training or directed workers’ job assignments. The plaintiffs claimed that they were underpaid and owed minimum wages and overtime.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. They argued that the plaintiffs were not Flat Rate employees under either the FLSA or the New York Labor Law. They also argued that the FLSA claims were entirely barred by the statute of limitations and that the New York claims were partly time-barred.

The court did not resolve the employee-versus-independent-contractor dispute. It concluded that the FLSA claims were time-barred and therefore did not need to decide that issue.

FLSA limitations period and equitable tolling

The FLSA generally allows a claim to be filed within two years after it arises, or within three years for a willful violation. Djurdjevich last performed services for Flat Rate in or around October 2011. Bacovic and Bulut last worked for Flat Rate sometime around late 2014. The plaintiffs did not dispute the defendants’ calculations showing that the claims were filed after the applicable deadlines. Instead, they argued that equitable tolling should extend the deadlines.

Equitable tolling is an exceptional rule that can extend a filing deadline when the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence but extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely lawsuit. The court held that the plaintiffs did not identify evidence creating a genuine dispute about either requirement.

First, the court rejected the argument that classifying the plaintiffs as independent contractors was, by itself, deception justifying equitable tolling. The plaintiffs did not identify evidence of deception or fraudulent concealment comparable to cases in which employers allegedly intimidated or deceived workers.

Second, the court assumed, without deciding, that Flat Rate may have failed to post notices explaining wage-and-hour rights. But the plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the missing notices contributed to their lack of awareness of those rights. The court therefore found that the alleged failure to post notices did not support equitable tolling on this record.

Third, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their immigrant status constituted an extraordinary circumstance. The court found that argument conclusory and unsupported by an explanation of why immigrant status prevented them from bringing their claims. The court also stated that lack of education, limited financial means, and ignorance of the law generally do not justify equitable tolling.

The court further held that the plaintiffs had not shown reasonable diligence. They offered no explanation for waiting years beyond the applicable deadlines to sue and did not identify facts showing that they acted diligently after learning of their rights.

Disposition

The court held that the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims were time-barred in full and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those claims. After disposing of the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining New York claims. The opinion’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, directs the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and resolves Docket No. 96.

Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors.