Maria v. El Mambi Rest Corp.

Background

Yesenia Javier Maria sued El Mambi Restaurant Corporation, El Mambi Steakhouse Corporation, Raul Acosta, Raul Ryan Acosta, Gabriel Cruz-Capote, Rafaelina Bautista, and Giovanni Bautista under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. She brought the case as a proposed collective action.

Maria alleged that she worked as a counter server from approximately 2005 through January 27, 2020, and that she was also required to perform non-tipped tasks such as dishwashing, cleaning the grill, sweeping and mopping, and preparing food. She alleged that these tasks took more than 20 percent of each shift. She further alleged that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay, that Defendants designated her as a counter server to avoid paying the applicable minimum wage, that they failed to provide required wage information, and that they unlawfully retained part of her tips.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Maria failed to adequately plead an overtime claim, failed to plead that Defendants were her employers, brought time-barred FLSA claims against Raul Acosta and El Mambi Restaurant Corporation, and could not proceed with her New York-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim plausible. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.

Overtime claim. The court held that Maria adequately pleaded the elements of an FLSA overtime claim. She alleged that she was not exempt from the wage-and-hour laws, worked approximately 41 hours per week during the relevant period, and was not paid more when she worked longer days. The court therefore concluded that she stated an overtime claim under the FLSA.

Employer status. The court applied the FLSA’s “economic realities” approach, which considers practical factors such as the power to hire and fire, control over schedules and working conditions, authority over pay, and maintenance of employment records. The court held that Maria adequately alleged that Raul Acosta, El Mambi Restaurant Corporation, El Mambi Steakhouse Corporation, Rafaelina Bautista, and Giovanni Bautista were her employers. The court explained that questions about when Raul Acosta and the two corporate defendants served as employers could affect liability but were not grounds for dismissal before discovery.

Statute of limitations. The FLSA generally provides a two-year limitations period, which can extend to three years for willful violations. The court held that Maria’s allegations that Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and in bad faith violated the FLSA and New York Labor Law were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege willfulness. The court declined to dismiss the FLSA claims against Raul Acosta and El Mambi Restaurant Corporation as untimely. It also declined to consider a wage notice attached by Defendants because the court’s review on this motion was generally limited to the complaint and materials properly considered with it.

Supplemental jurisdiction. The court held that the FLSA and New York Labor Law claims arose from the same compensation policies and practices. Because the court had not dismissed any of Maria’s federal claims, it concluded that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims was proper.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants were directed to answer the complaint by June 29, 2021. The opinion did not decide whether the case would ultimately proceed as a collective action.