Ruiz v. Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp.

Background

Sandy Ruiz sued Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp., doing business as Cocina Chente Mexican Cuisine, and Moises Lopez Sr., Roma Lopez, and Juan Rosario. Ruiz brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. He sought unpaid overtime for himself and other similarly situated workers.

Ruiz alleged that he worked as a cook from about July 24, 2017, through May 1, 2020. He said he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, often without a meal break, was paid a flat weekly cash salary that did not include overtime, performed work before and after scheduled shifts, and did not receive written records of his hours.

Ruiz sought conditional certification of a collective consisting of cooks, food preparers, and dishwashers who worked at Cocina Chente. He supported the motion with a declaration describing his own work and his conversations with coworkers, including Claston, Alexis, Elido Cruz, and Jose Perez. Ruiz said these workers also worked long hours without overtime pay and were paid in cash.

The defendants submitted declarations disputing parts of Ruiz’s account. They stated that workers had different duties, schedules, and pay rates; that some workers were dishwashers or part-time line cooks rather than cooks; and that Cruz worked fewer days and received breaks. Cruz also stated that he had no complaints about his employment and was concerned that Ruiz was planning to hurt Lopez Sr.

Conditional Certification

Section 216(b) of the FLSA allows an employee to sue on behalf of himself and other employees who are similarly situated. The Second Circuit’s two-step process begins with a conditional-certification stage. At that stage, the plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court does not resolve factual disputes, decide credibility, or determine the ultimate merits at this stage.

Judge Liman held that Ruiz met this modest burden. Ruiz identified specific kitchen workers who, according to his declaration, worked more than eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week without overtime. The court also relied on the allegations that the workers were paid flat rates in cash and that the restaurant did not have a system for tracking their time.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Ruiz’s declaration was insufficient because coworkers had not verified it, that factual inconsistencies defeated certification, and that differences in job duties, schedules, and pay rates prevented the workers from being similarly situated. The court held that those issues could be addressed later, after discovery, when the court would decide whether the workers who joined the case were actually similarly situated. The court could then decertify the collective if the fuller record showed that they were not.

Notice

The court approved notice to cooks, dishwashers, and food preparers employed by the defendants at Cocina Chente from October 16, 2017, through the present. The court rejected the defendants’ request to limit notice to workers employed during the two years before the complaint was filed. The court stated that possible time-limit issues could be addressed later for individual workers.

The court required an added statement informing potential plaintiffs that the defendants contended the FLSA’s time limit was two years and that the court might ultimately determine that a person did not have a claim if that person was not employed during the two-year period before joining the lawsuit. The court rejected the defendants’ objection concerning attorney-fee information because the proposed notice already disclosed that counsel could apply for one-third of a settlement or judgment, or the actual value of counsel’s time.

The court also approved posting the notice at Cocina Chente in a location clearly visible to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Discovery

Ruiz requested the names, mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and employment dates of potential members of the collective. The court held that discovery of names and contact information was appropriate to facilitate notice.

The court granted discovery of the names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, and employment dates of the relevant workers. It denied discovery of Social Security numbers because Ruiz had not shown at this stage that names and other contact information would be insufficient to provide notice.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Ruiz’s motion for conditional collective-action certification was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court ordered Ruiz to submit a revised notice within seven days. It ordered the defendants to produce the specified contact and employment information within 14 days and to post the notice. Ruiz was required to distribute the revised notice after receiving the production and provide the defendants with a list of opt-in plaintiffs after the 60-day opt-in period. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.