Jesus v. Oyshi Table Corp.

Background

The plaintiffs worked as food preparers and delivery persons at Toasties, a Manhattan deli operated by Oyshi Table Corp. Oyshi purchased the deli in March 2014 and operated it until it closed in July 2020. The plaintiffs sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging violations involving minimum wage, overtime, meal and break deductions, meal credits, delivery-related expenses, and New York’s spread-of-hours pay.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to reject specified claims brought by Fidel De Jesus, Cirino Morales, and Alfonso Mendez, and all claims for damages allegedly incurred before Oyshi purchased the deli. The motion did not challenge any claims brought by Victor Ramos or Rogelio Bazan.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The party opposing the motion must identify specific evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in its favor; unsupported allegations and speculation are not enough.

Fidel De Jesus’s claims

De Jesus admitted that Oyshi paid him at least the minimum wage and paid overtime at one and one-half times his hourly wage during his employment. He also admitted that he could not identify a week in 2014 through 2019 when he was not paid the required minimum wage or overtime, or a day in 2014 when he was not paid spread-of-hours pay.

De Jesus argued that meal-credit and break deductions nevertheless caused him to receive less than the required amounts. The court found that his declaration repeated his complaint’s allegations without objective supporting evidence and did not explain how those deductions resulted in minimum-wage or overtime violations. The court also reviewed Oyshi’s payroll records. Those records supported the admissions for most weeks, but suggested possible underpayment during the weeks of June 19, 2015; April 8, 2016; and June 30, 2017.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on De Jesus’s FLSA and NYLL minimum-wage and overtime claims, except for those three weeks. It also granted the motion on De Jesus’s NYLL spread-of-hours claims for 2014.

Cirino Morales’s claims

Morales admitted that Oyshi paid him at least the minimum wage and overtime at one and one-half times his hourly wage. He also admitted that he could not identify a week in 2016, 2017, or 2018 when he was not paid those amounts, or a day in 2014 or 2016 when he was not paid spread-of-hours pay.

As with De Jesus, Morales relied primarily on an unsupported declaration concerning meal breaks and deductions. The court found that he had not identified evidence creating a genuine dispute about his pay. After reviewing the payroll records, however, the court concluded that Morales might have been underpaid during the week of June 30, 2017.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Morales’s FLSA and NYLL minimum-wage and overtime claims for 2016, 2017, and 2018, except for the week of June 30, 2017. It also granted the motion on Morales’s NYLL spread-of-hours claims for 2014 and 2016.

Alfonso Mendez’s claims

Mendez worked as a tipped employee. He admitted that Oyshi did not claim a tip credit against his wages in 2019 or 2020. He also admitted that he could not identify a day when he was not paid spread-of-hours pay in 2014, 2019, or 2020.

Mendez argued that he worked through breaks, suffered improper meal deductions, and was not reimbursed for delivery vehicles, maintenance, and repairs. The court found that he offered no supporting evidence, such as receipts or a specific description of the claimed maintenance and repairs.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mendez’s minimum-wage and overtime claims for 2019 and 2020. It also granted the motion on his NYLL spread-of-hours claims for 2014, 2019, and 2020.

Claims for damages before March 2014

The plaintiffs argued that Oyshi could be responsible for damages incurred before it purchased Toasties. The court applied the common-law rules governing successor liability, under which an asset purchaser generally is not liable for the seller’s debts unless an exception applies, such as an agreement to assume the debts, fraud, a de facto merger, or continuation of the prior business.

The plaintiffs relied on the facts that some plaintiffs worked at Toasties before the purchase, the deli kept the Toasties name, and it remained at the same location. The court held that these facts showed, at most, continuity of personnel and location. Because the plaintiffs did not allege continuity of ownership, the court found that the de facto-merger and mere-continuation exceptions did not apply.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims for damages allegedly accruing before March 2014.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment except as to De Jesus’s minimum-wage and overtime claims for the weeks of June 19, 2015; April 8, 2016; and June 30, 2017, and Morales’s minimum-wage and overtime claims for the week of June 30, 2017. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed joint pretrial order within thirty days and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket Number 76.