Sanchez v. Art+1, Inc.

Background

Salvador Sanchez, Celso Torres, Allan Ford, Idelfonso Gil, Wandy Ramirez, David Torres, and Jhon Vinas brought a proposed collective action against Art+1, Inc. and Artan Maksuti, individually, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants employed them as construction laborers at construction sites across New York City and required them to work more than 40 hours per week without paying time-and-a-half overtime. They alleged that Defendants paid them by check for 40 hours and in cash for overtime hours, and did not make legally required withholdings.

The second amended complaint alleged that the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective included more than 150 current or former construction laborers who worked for Defendants during the three years before September 22, 2020, and were denied overtime wages. Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification and for permission to notify potential members. The court had previously granted their request to pause the limitations period for potential opt-in plaintiffs while deciding the motion.

Legal standard

The Fair Labor Standards Act allows an employee to sue on behalf of the employee and other employees who are similarly situated and who give written consent to join. At the first, notice-stage step of certification, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they 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 the ultimate wage claims, or make credibility findings at this stage. After discovery is largely complete, the court may reassess whether the people who joined are actually similarly situated and may decertify the collective if they are not.

Parties’ positions

Plaintiffs submitted affidavits from five of the named Plaintiffs. They stated that Defendants paid the same regular rate for a 40-hour week and overtime, concealed the alleged practice by paying regular wages by check and overtime wages in cash, and treated other employees similarly. Vinas identified Luis Carlos Gonzales as a potential opt-in member and stated that Gonzales worked similar hours and was an hourly employee.

Defendants argued that the affidavits lacked sufficient or credible detail, that Plaintiffs had not identified another potential collective member, and that the proposed group was not sufficiently limited in time. Defendants also sought limits on the notice, including excluding salaried employees and using a method other than email.

Court’s ruling

The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional collective certification. It found that the five affidavits provided sufficient modest factual support for an alleged common scheme involving unpaid overtime. The court rejected Defendants’ credibility challenge because credibility is not decided at the first certification stage.

The court also found that Plaintiffs had identified at least one potential opt-in member with sufficient detail: Luis Carlos Gonzales. It further found that the proposed collective was limited to current and former employees who worked for Defendants during the three years before the second amended complaint. The court therefore conditionally certified the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective.

The court also granted Plaintiffs’ request to circulate notice, but required the parties to submit a proposed notice and a distribution plan within one week, by March 16, 2021. It declined to decide Defendants’ proposed notice limits concerning salaried employees and email because Plaintiffs had not identified salaried employees and the parties had not yet proposed a distribution method. The order did not decide whether Defendants ultimately violated the wage laws or whether the potential members were in fact similarly situated.