Shi v. TL & CG Inc.

Background

Yuefeng Shi worked as a delivery worker for TL & CG Inc., doing business as Han Sushi, during two periods between February 2018 and July 2019. Shi moved for summary judgment—a ruling issued without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact exists—on claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). He sought unpaid wages and overtime, spread-of-hours pay, damages for an allegedly promised wage, damages for deficient wage notices and wage statements, reimbursement for electric-bicycle expenses, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The opinion states that TL & CG Inc. was engaged in interstate commerce, had annual gross sales exceeding $500,000, was incorporated in New York, and had more than 10 employees. The parties agreed that Shi was an employee who was not exempt from overtime requirements. The parties disagreed about who hired and supervised Shi, who controlled his schedule and pay, how many hours he worked, how much he was paid, whether he had to return part of his pay, whether he was promised $50 per day, and whether he was required to purchase and maintain an electric bicycle for work.

Individual Liability

Shi sought judgment that Guoqing Chen and Yinen Chen were his employers under the FLSA and NYLL. The court explained that an individual may be an employer when the economic reality shows that the person controlled the worker. The court considers factors including the power to hire and fire, control over schedules and working conditions, authority over pay, and maintenance of employment records.

The court held that disputed evidence prevented it from deciding as a matter of law that either Guoqing Chen or Yinen Chen exercised formal or functional control over Shi. Shi said Guoqing Chen signed his paychecks and that Yinen Chen hired and fired workers and sometimes arranged his schedule. The defendants gave contrary accounts. Shi also provided no support showing that either person kept or had the power to keep employment records concerning him. The court denied summary judgment on this ground.

Wage, Overtime, and Spread-of-Hours Claims

The court stated that an employee may rely on reasonable estimates of hours worked when the employer’s records are inadequate. Here, the defendants did not keep records of Shi’s working time. But the parties offered conflicting evidence about whether Shi worked 50 hours per week with one hour of breaks, as Shi claimed, or 45 hours per week with two hours of breaks, as the defendants claimed. They also disagreed about whether Shi was paid $225 per week, whether he had to return part of his monthly checks, whether he received tips, and whether the payments reflected his schedule and meal deductions.

The court found these inconsistencies material because they prevented it from determining Shi’s total earnings, hourly wage, overtime entitlement, minimum-wage entitlement, or entitlement to New York spread-of-hours pay. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the FLSA and NYLL minimum-wage and overtime claims and on the NYLL spread-of-hours claim.

Promised-Wage Claim

Shi claimed that he was promised $50 per day but received only $45 per day. The court held that the conflicting evidence prevented it from determining whether he was promised $50, actually paid $45, or paid more. The court denied summary judgment on the NYLL promised-wage claim.

Wage Notices and Wage Statements

The court concluded that the wage notices submitted by the defendants did not comply with New York law because they did not identify a pay period or regular pay date. The defendants also did not dispute that Shi was not given a compliant wage statement.

Nevertheless, the court held that Shi lacked standing to pursue these claims. Standing requires a concrete injury connected to the challenged conduct that a court can redress. The court found that Shi’s claimed monetary injury was hypothetical because he did not show that the alleged wage underpayment would have been smaller if he had received proper notices or statements. The court also found that he had not identified an informational injury with consequences beyond this lawsuit. It denied summary judgment on the wage-notice and wage-statement claims.

Tools-of-the-Trade Expenses

Shi claimed that he had to buy and maintain an electric bicycle for his delivery work and was not reimbursed for a first bicycle, a replacement bicycle, or a battery. The defendants said he was not required to use the bicycle and already owned one before working at Han Sushi. Because this dispute concerned a central issue in the claim and required assessing credibility, the court denied summary judgment on the FLSA and NYLL tools-of-the-trade claim.

Damages and Fees

Because Shi was not granted summary judgment on his unpaid-wage claims, the court ruled that he was not entitled to liquidated damages or prejudgment interest at that time. The court also ruled that he was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs at that time because his summary-judgment motion was denied.

Disposition

The court denied Shi’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion and ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference to schedule pretrial proceedings and trial. The opinion states that Shi did not seek summary judgment against Jian Xiang Yang, who had not appeared, and that Shi planned to seek a separate default judgment against him.