Pena v. SP Plus Corporation

Background

Oniel Pena brought a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action against SP Plus Corporation. He alleged that SP Plus failed to pay parking attendants for all time worked because it rounded recorded hours improperly and required attendants to clock out for meal breaks even when they had to remain available to assist customers. Pena sought unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Pena worked primarily at one SP Plus parking facility in New York City. He submitted declarations stating that he and other parking attendants experienced the alleged rounding and meal-break practices. Demarlo Rhodes, another former SP Plus worker, supplied similar information and described work at several New York City facilities. SP Plus disputed Pena’s claims and denied liability.

Conditional certification

Under FLSA section 216(b), employees may join a case if they are similarly situated, meaning their claims arise from a common policy or plan. At the first stage, the court decides whether there is enough evidence to send notice to potential participants; it does not decide the ultimate merits of the wage claims.

The court found that Pena made the required modest factual showing for parking attendants at SP Plus facilities in New York City. The evidence indicated that Pena, Rhodes, and other parking attendants held the same position, performed the same duties, and allegedly faced the same rounding and meal-break practices. The court also considered evidence that SP Plus operated or licensed more than 200 New York City garages, listed New York City job openings through one website, and required attendants to rotate among facilities as needed.

The court rejected nationwide and statewide certification because Pena provided no evidence about SP Plus facilities elsewhere in New York State or the United States. It also limited the group to parking attendants because the record did not describe other categories of employees or show that they were similarly situated to Pena.

Notice and information disclosure

The court conditionally certified a collective consisting of parking attendants who worked at SP Plus parking facilities in New York City on or after February 18, 2017. It authorized notice to those potential participants and required the parties to meet and confer and submit a revised notice for court review by June 4, 2021.

The court ordered SP Plus to provide information for covered parking attendants, including names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, known email addresses, work locations, and employment dates. The notice was to be mailed after court approval, posted at SP Plus’s New York City parking facilities, and translated into Spanish. Potential participants would have 60 days from distribution of the notice to opt in.

Equitable tolling

Pena asked the court to pause the statute of limitations for all potential participants until notice was distributed. The court denied that request, finding that the possible absence of email addresses did not establish the rare and exceptional circumstances required for equitable tolling. The final order stated that the denial was without prejudice to an individual plaintiff’s ability to request tolling by showing that tolling applies to that person’s circumstances.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the Collective Motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It was granted to the extent the court conditionally certified the New York City parking-attendant collective and authorized related notice procedures. It was denied as to Pena’s request for equitable tolling, without prejudice to individual tolling requests. The order did not decide whether SP Plus ultimately violated the FLSA.