Tarax Tarax v. Blossom West Inc.

Background

Four current or former employees of Blossom of Columbus, a vegan restaurant operated by Blossom West Inc., sued the defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and state law. The plaintiffs worked as night porters, deliverymen, dishwashers, and helpers. Ronen Seri was a principal of Blossom West Inc. The parties disputed Ramiro Ramirez’s role, although they agreed that he worked as a restaurant manager.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay required minimum wages and overtime compensation. They sought damages, a declaration concerning the alleged violations, and attorneys’ costs and fees. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal claims. The opinion states that the motion did not appear to seek summary judgment on the state-law claims. The court added that, even if the defendants intended to move against those claims, it would deny the motion because genuine factual disputes existed.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion and may not decide witness credibility or choose between conflicting accounts.

For an unpaid-overtime claim under the FLSA, a plaintiff must show that the plaintiff performed work for which the plaintiff was not properly paid and that the employer knew, or should have known, about that work. When employer records are inaccurate or inadequate, an employee may rely on testimony and reasonable estimates of hours worked. If that evidence is sufficient, the employer must provide evidence of the precise hours worked or otherwise show that the employee’s estimate is unreasonable.

Unpaid hours

The defendants relied on payroll records that they said were accurate and had been signed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs testified that the records were inaccurate because management told them to sign blank pieces of paper before the hours and pay calculations were entered. Each plaintiff also gave estimates of hours worked and amounts paid.

The court held that this testimony created a genuine dispute about whether the plaintiffs performed work for which they were not properly compensated. The payroll records might affect the plaintiffs’ credibility at trial, but their existence did not entitle the defendants to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs’ estimates, even if not perfectly precise, could allow a reasonable jury to find that they met the applicable reasonable-estimate standard.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ declarations should be disregarded under a narrow exception for testimony so unbelievable that no reasonable jury could accept it. The court found that the plaintiffs’ testimony was not inherently contradictory and that the absence of supporting evidence was not enough to apply that exception.

Knowledge of unpaid work

The defendants also argued that the evidence did not show that they knew, or should have known, that the plaintiffs were working unpaid hours. The court disagreed. Santos Tarax testified that he was sometimes asked to keep working after his scheduled shift ended and that he complained about wage shortfalls to a supervisory employee. Getulio Lopez Murillo testified that he complained about wage shortfalls to Ramiro Ramirez, whom the parties agreed was a manager.

The court concluded that this testimony created factual disputes about whether the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge. The plaintiffs’ testimony that they were required to sign blank papers could also support an inference that the defendants concealed, or deliberately ignored, the actual hours worked. The court emphasized that disputes about the credibility and weight of this testimony must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order resolved the motion identified as Docket Number 50 and scheduled a conference for April 28, 2021. The opinion does not decide whether the plaintiffs ultimately proved their wage claims.