Cid v. BB Management Of New York Corp.

Background

Rafael Cid brought federal and state wage claims against BB Management of New York Corp. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, including minimum-wage violations and wage theft. The case was brought on behalf of Cid and others similarly situated.

BB Management employed Cid as the superintendent of a 30-unit residential building. Cid had worked there since 2008, worked approximately 30 hours per week, and lived in an apartment in the building with his family. He did not pay rent because the apartment was part of his compensation. The compensation also included utilities, $240 per year for a cell phone, and weekly wages of $185 from 2014 through 2018, $190 in 2019, and $225 in 2020.

BB Management moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment allows a court to resolve a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Cid was a “residential janitor” under the New York Department of Labor’s wage order for residential-building workers. That wage order requires employers in the building-service industry to pay residential janitors a weekly minimum based on the number of units in the building, subject to a cap, rather than applying only an hourly minimum wage and overtime calculation.

Cid argued that the wage order conflicted with, and was preempted by, the FLSA because he believed the federal law required greater wage protection. He also argued that applying the wage order violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and that New York lacked authority to enact wage legislation providing less protection than the FLSA. The court stated that Cid’s alleged conflict between the wage order and the FLSA was his sole basis for federal jurisdiction. After allowing Cid’s attorney one week to submit supporting authority, the court noted that no supplemental authority was submitted.

The court found no reason to conclude that the wage order violated the FLSA. Separately, it determined that the rent-free apartment, utilities, and wage payments provided by BB Management were sufficient to satisfy the federal minimum-wage requirements because federal law includes lodging and other facilities in the definition of “wage.” The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cid’s state-law claims, meaning it chose not to decide those state claims under its additional jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted BB Management’s motion for summary judgment. It instructed the clerk to close the motion docket entry, ECF No. 32. The opinion does not state that the state-law claims were dismissed or specify whether they could be refiled.