Hong v. Quest International Limousine, Inc.

Background

Hong worked as a driver for Quest’s clients from about 2010 through late 2018. In 2019, he and seven other drivers filed an earlier collective action against Quest, its owner, and the owner’s son, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and state common law.

The defendants in that earlier case asserted counterclaims against Hong for interference with contractual relations and defamation, then withdrew those counterclaims. Before they were withdrawn, Quest filed a similar lawsuit against Hong in New York State Supreme Court. Hong alleged that he did not understand that he had to respond because of a language barrier. The state court entered default against him, held an inquest on damages, entered judgment for Quest, and awarded no damages.

After discovery and a bench trial in the earlier collective action, the court found that Hong had not proven his claims. The court also found that Hong and the other plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, under the FLSA and NYLL. Hong then brought this separate action, alleging that Quest retaliated against him for filing the earlier collective action.

Motion to Dismiss

Quest moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Quest argued that the state-court claims were not baseless. The court later requested additional briefing on whether Hong could pursue retaliation claims after the earlier finding that he was not Quest’s employee.

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show an entitlement to relief. The court also may take judicial notice of public court records, including state-court filings and rulings.

Court’s Analysis

The FLSA prohibits retaliation against an employee for filing a complaint or starting an FLSA proceeding. Its private-remedy provision makes an employer liable for legal or equitable relief. The NYLL contains a similar, more broadly worded anti-retaliation provision.

The court held that Hong could not maintain either claim because he was an independent contractor, not an employee, and Quest was not his employer under the FLSA’s economic-reality test. The court declined to follow a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed certain retaliation remedies against non-employers, reasoning that the statutory structure distinguishes between criminal liability for any person who retaliates and a private right of action against employers.

The court also concluded that its FLSA analysis controlled the NYLL claim because courts in the Second Circuit generally interpret the NYLL’s employer definition consistently with the FLSA’s definition. Therefore, Hong’s NYLL retaliation claim failed as well.

Disposition

Quest’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.