Katz v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Background

Monique Katz and Yekaterina Skidanenko sued Equinox Holdings, Inc. for allegedly failing to pay wages under federal, state, and city law. The action included claims brought for the plaintiffs themselves and for other similarly situated workers.

The parties agreed to conditional certification of a collective consisting of Equinox’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 personal trainers employed in New York. Conditional certification allows potential members of a wage collective action to receive notice and decide whether to join. The parties could not agree on the collective’s time period.

Skidanenko sought a blanket form of equitable tolling. Equitable tolling can extend a legal deadline when a person acted diligently but extraordinary circumstances prevented timely action. She asked the court to toll the statute of limitations for all potential Tier 1 and Tier 2 opt-in plaintiffs employed on or after March 25, 2017. Equinox agreed that the period could extend back to February 5, 2019, but opposed a longer period.

Court’s analysis

The court held that blanket equitable tolling requires specific information about the potential opt-in plaintiffs who might be affected, including whether they acted diligently and what extraordinary circumstances prevented them from protecting their rights. Skidanenko had not supplied that information.

The court also rejected Skidanenko’s argument that her own diligence was the central issue. The relevant question was whether existing or potential opt-in plaintiffs had diligently pursued their rights. In addition, the court found that Skidanenko herself had not acted with reasonable diligence. She had several opportunities to seek conditional certification and chose not to do so, primarily to save attorneys’ fees. The court found that she was not prevented from filing the motion and had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

The court further concluded that delays caused by courts’ consideration of motions do not by themselves justify equitable tolling when the plaintiff has not diligently pursued certification. Because Skidanenko waited to seek certification after the relevant delays had ended, the court found that the delay resulted from her failure to pursue certification diligently.

Ruling

The court DENIED without prejudice Skidanenko’s request for a blanket toll of the statute of limitations from the date of her original complaint. The denial was without prejudice to potential opt-in plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis.

Based on Equinox’s agreement, the court ruled that claims of Tier 1 and Tier 2 trainers employed on or after February 5, 2019, would be timely. The collective period was therefore defined as February 5, 2019, through June 26, 2022. The Clerk was directed to close the open motion at Docket 86.