DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A.

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law against Valentino U.S.A., Inc. They alleged that Valentino deliberately classified employees as exempt from overtime even though they were not exempt, causing them to work more than 40 hours without overtime pay. The plaintiffs sought back pay and asked the court to conditionally certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for current and former non-executive corporate and retail employees who had been classified as exempt and later classified as non-exempt.

The opinion describes Valentino’s 2019 reclassification of some employees from exempt to non-exempt status. The plaintiffs argued that the reclassification showed Valentino had previously violated wage laws. Declarations from James Choi and Andreya Crawford described their own work and alleged unpaid overtime. Alicia Learmont, who worked in human resources, described conversations and an analysis concerning possible misclassification of employees.

Legal standard

The court explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit uses a two-step process for FLSA collective actions. At the first step, the court decides whether potential plaintiffs should receive notice. Plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they and the potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law and were similarly situated in their job requirements and pay provisions.

For exemption cases, the plaintiffs must show both a common classification policy or scheme and similarity in job responsibilities. The burden is low but not automatic, and conclusory allegations are insufficient. At this preliminary stage, the court does not decide factual disputes, determine credibility, or resolve the ultimate question of whether the employees were properly classified.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on Valentino’s 2019 reclassification as proof of a common unlawful policy. It would not assume that reclassification admitted that the earlier classifications were improper. The court held that a blanket reclassification, standing alone, did not establish that all proposed collective members were victims of a common policy that violated the FLSA.

The court also found that the proposed collective was too broadly defined. The plaintiffs did not identify the specific positions or departments included, and they sought to include both corporate and retail employees. The court said that the plaintiffs had not shown shared job responsibilities. The duties described by Choi and Crawford—financial planning and sales analysis for Choi, and data entry, invoicing, shipping orders, and related tasks for Crawford—were not alleged to overlap with each other or with the duties of the proposed collective members.

The court further observed that declarations referring to coworkers who worked overtime without overtime pay did not establish that those coworkers were misclassified or later reclassified. The court therefore could not draw the required factual connection between the named plaintiffs and the proposed collective.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. The court expressly declined to decide whether Choi, Crawford, Benitez, or Brereton were actually misclassified while working for Valentino. The clerk was asked to close the motion at docket entry 62.