Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hoxhaj v. Cetta, Judge Liman granted employees’ motion to compel tip records relevant to their wage claims.
The three former Sparks Restaurant employees obtained the requested discovery concerning tip sheets and tip collection and distribution records; the defendants were required to respond to the granted motion to compel.
What happened
In Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc., three former Sparks Restaurant employees sought records about tips paid to waiters. They said they were moved to waiter and busboy jobs, were not paid required overtime, and did not receive tips left by customers.
The employees requested tip sheets and records showing the collection and distribution of tips. The defendants objected that the information was irrelevant and that the employees were not tipped workers. The court concluded that the records could help prove the employees’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The court granted the motion to compel. Judge Liman ruled that the defendants’ argument about whether the employees were entitled to tips concerned a defense and did not eliminate their right to seek relevant discovery.
The detailed version
- Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06486
- Lewis Liman
- May 25, 2022
Background
Three former employees of Sparks Restaurant brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1947 and New York Labor Law. They alleged that, after a labor dispute in December 2014, they were moved from quasi-managerial positions supervising waiters to positions as waiters and busboys. They further alleged that they were not paid legally required overtime or tips and asserted claims involving overtime wages, withholding of tips, and age and religious discrimination.
The employees filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(A) to compel discovery about tips paid to waiters during the period covered by the complaint. They requested all tip sheets for the relevant period and all records showing the collection and distribution of tips. The defendants refused to produce the documents, arguing that the requests were irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case and that the plaintiffs were not tipped employees and therefore were not included in the tip pool. In opposing the motion, the plaintiffs argued relevance but did not argue burden.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court explained that relevance is broadly understood to include information that bears on, or reasonably could lead to information bearing on, a claim or defense.
The plaintiffs alleged that customers almost always left tips for their services and that the defendants did not pay them tips left by credit card. They asserted that this conduct violated New York Labor Law § 196-d, which restricts an employer’s ability to demand or accept gratuities intended for an employee. The court concluded that the requested tip records were relevant to those claims.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs were not entitled to tips as a reason to deny discovery. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the tips was a defense to their claims, not a basis for preventing them from obtaining discovery needed to prove those claims.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to compel and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket entry 23. The opinion did not state a production deadline or separately decide whether the plaintiffs ultimately were entitled to the tips.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.