Reyes Nepomuceno v. Columbia Deli & Grill Inc.

Background

Eduardo Reyes Nepomuceno brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against Amsterdam Deli and Convenience Corp., Columbia Deli & Grill Inc., Shawqi Algaad, and other defendants. The motion addressed only Shawqi Algaad. Nepomuceno sought partial summary judgment, meaning a ruling that particular issues could be decided without a trial because no genuine dispute of material fact existed.

Algaad was one of four individuals who owned Columbia Deli & Grill Inc. from 2015 until January 17, 2019. The court found that the uncontested evidence showed Algaad hired and fired employees, set schedules, decided pay, handed out wages, and directed employees’ work. Nepomuceno said he worked at least 48 hours per week and was paid about $540 per week; Algaad had testified that he paid Nepomuceno $840 per week. Nepomuceno also said that he sometimes worked more than 10 hours in a day, while Algaad testified that he never did.

Algaad’s lawyer withdrew before the motion was filed, and the court allowed Algaad to represent himself. Algaad did not oppose the motion, even after the court gave him a final opportunity to respond. The court nevertheless reviewed Nepomuceno’s evidence to determine whether it supported the requested rulings.

FLSA coverage and employer status

The court held that Nepomuceno met the threshold requirements for his FLSA minimum-wage and overtime claims. The evidence showed that he handled Mistolin, which was made in Puerto Rico, and that the bodega sold products such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. The evidence also showed that Columbia Deli & Grill’s annual gross revenues exceeded $500,000 in 2018. These facts satisfied the FLSA’s enterprise-coverage requirements.

The court also held that Algaad was Nepomuceno’s employer under the FLSA and applied the same analysis under the NYLL. Algaad’s authority to hire and fire, set schedules, determine pay, distribute wages, and direct work established that he was a joint employer.

Minimum-wage claims

The court dismissed Nepomuceno’s FLSA and NYLL minimum-wage claims. The court explained that a weekly wage is generally divided by 40 hours to determine the regular hourly rate. Even using Nepomuceno’s lower figure of $540 per week, the resulting rate was $13.50 per hour, exceeding the $12 New York minimum wage and the $7.25 federal minimum wage identified in the opinion. The court therefore concluded that the minimum-wage claims failed as a matter of law.

Overtime claims

The court granted Nepomuceno’s motion for summary judgment on Algaad’s liability for violating the FLSA and NYLL overtime requirements. The record established that Nepomuceno worked at least 48 hours per week. Under the applicable rule, a fixed weekly wage is presumed to cover only the first 40 hours unless the employer provides evidence of an agreement that the wage includes overtime pay. Algaad provided no such evidence. The court granted judgment on liability, but the amount of overtime damages remained disputed because the parties disagreed about Nepomuceno’s employment period, hours, and wages.

Spread-of-hours claim

The court denied Nepomuceno’s request for summary judgment on his NYLL spread-of-hours claim. New York law provides an additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate for a day when the period from the beginning to the end of the workday exceeds 10 hours. Nepomuceno said he worked 12-hour days during one month, while Algaad testified that he never worked more than 10 hours in a day. Because that factual dispute was material, the court would not decide the claim on summary judgment.

Wage notices and wage statements

The court granted summary judgment on Algaad’s liability for failing to provide the wage notice, acknowledgment, and wage statements required by the NYLL. Algaad testified that he gave Nepomuceno no written documents at hiring or afterward and provided no paper or other accompanying document when paying him in cash.

The court did not award statutory damages at that stage. The amounts depended on disputed facts, including Nepomuceno’s first day of employment, the length of his employment, and the dates on which wage statements should have been provided. The court held that liability was established but that the amount of statutory damages remained in dispute.

Willfulness and liquidated damages

The court denied Nepomuceno’s request for a ruling that Algaad’s violations were willful and that Nepomuceno was therefore entitled to liquidated damages. Willfulness requires proof that Algaad knew his conduct was unlawful or recklessly disregarded that possibility. The court found that Nepomuceno had not shown more than possible negligence, even though Algaad had not consulted a lawyer or accountant about employee pay.

Declaratory-judgment claim

The court dismissed Nepomuceno’s declaratory-judgment claim as duplicative. It reasoned that the other claims would necessarily resolve the same issues, so a separate declaration would provide no useful clarification or relief from uncertainty.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the motion for partial summary judgment was granted on Algaad’s liability for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and NYLL and on liability for failing to provide NYLL wage notices, acknowledgments, and wage statements. The requests for summary judgment on spread-of-hours wages and liquidated damages were denied. The FLSA and NYLL minimum-wage claims were dismissed, and the declaratory-judgment claim was dismissed. The court stated that it would issue a separate order scheduling trial.