Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

Background

Derrick Stewart brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against Hudson Hall LLC, doing business as Mercado Little Spain, Think Food Group LLC, and José Ramon Andrés Puerta, also known as José Ramon. Stewart sought unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for off-the-clock work, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Stewart asked the court to conditionally approve an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). He proposed including current and former non-exempt employees who worked as line cooks, cooks, food preparers, stock persons, counterpersons, porters, dishwashers, and food runners at the defendants’ restaurants, bars, or kiosks on or after January 31, 2014. He also asked the court to facilitate notice to those potential plaintiffs and order the defendants to disclose their contact and employment information.

Stewart alleged four original categories of wage violations: unpaid overtime; work performed after clocking out; unpaid waiting or work time caused by a policy requiring manager approval for clocking in or out more than five minutes from a scheduled shift; and automatic meal-break deductions when employees allegedly worked during those breaks. He later added allegations about unpaid pre-shift time spent changing clothes, finding a locker, bringing equipment to work, and walking to a workstation; unpaid breaks of 20 minutes or less; and editing of employee time records.

Legal standard

The court explained that FLSA collective actions allow employees to sue on behalf of themselves and other employees who are similarly situated, but employees must affirmatively consent to join. At the initial stage, courts may authorize notice as a case-management tool. Because the parties had completed discovery focused on collective certification, the court applied the more demanding “modest plus” standard. Under that standard, the court considered evidence from both sides while recognizing that the record was incomplete, but it did not decide the ultimate merits of the wage claims.

Stewart had to make a factual showing that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. Unsupported or conclusory assertions were insufficient.

Court’s analysis

For the overtime allegations, Stewart relied on a paystub showing payment for 52.94 hours during one week. The defendants submitted records and testimony stating that 15.56 hours of that amount represented retroactive payment for hours Stewart had claimed were missing from earlier weeks and should have been identified as retroactive pay. The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Stewart might have been paid at the wrong overtime rate for those hours. It nevertheless found that Stewart supplied no evidence showing that any other employee was denied proper overtime. The defendants’ records showed that they paid more than $32,000 in overtime to 49 employees, including ten line cooks, during part of Stewart’s employment period. The court also noted that no other employee had opted into the case or submitted a supporting declaration.

For the original off-the-clock allegations, the court treated the dispute over whether Stewart personally performed unpaid work as a factual dispute that was not resolved on this motion. It nevertheless found insufficient evidence that other similarly situated employees were subject to a common unlawful practice. The defendants’ handbook prohibited off-the-clock work, and company representatives testified that employees who worked before or after scheduled shifts would be clocked in and paid. The court found Stewart’s accounts of coworkers’ statements too vague and noted that no coworkers provided sworn statements.

For the supplemental allegations, the court relied in part on its recommendation that Stewart not be allowed to add those allegations to the complaint. It also found that changing clothes under normal conditions, waiting to change or find a locker, and walking to a workstation were generally not compensable activities under the FLSA on the facts presented. The court found Stewart’s allegation about unpaid short breaks conclusory and unsupported by examples involving other employees. It also found that part of his declaration about storing knives conflicted with his deposition testimony. Finally, no other employee provided testimony or a declaration supporting the supplemental allegations.

Disposition

The court denied Stewart’s Collective Motion. It declined to approve the proposed notice because collective-action treatment was not warranted, and it rejected Stewart’s request for additional employee contact and employment information. The order did not determine the ultimate merits of Stewart’s individual wage claims.

The opinion was signed by Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.