Diaz v. New York Paving Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-04910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Diaz v. New York Paving Inc., Judge Carter denied NY Paving’s motion to end the federal wage-law collective action, so it continues.
Edgardo Diaz, the workers who joined the FLSA collective, and New York Paving Inc. The collective action remained intact after the court denied New York Paving’s motion to decertify it.
What happened
In Diaz v. New York Paving Inc., Edgardo Diaz and other pavers alleged that New York Paving required them to work off the clock without proper pay, including overtime and straight-time wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.
New York Paving asked the court to decertify, or end, the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. It argued that the workers had not shown a common policy requiring unpaid work and that union officials, rather than the company, were responsible for any such instructions. The court found that an unwritten policy or one carried out through others could still support the workers’ claims.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion to decertify. He found that the workers’ declarations and testimony showed that pavers were consistently expected to arrive early to perform preparatory work, and that New York Paving offered no evidence that it discouraged this practice.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. New York Paving Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04910
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Edgardo Diaz sued New York Paving Inc. individually and on behalf of other similarly situated workers. The workers alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, including failure to pay overtime and straight-time wages. The case involved a group of current and former pavers who alleged that New York Paving had a policy requiring off-the-clock work. Judge Gorenstein had previously granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective.
Motion to Decertify
New York Paving moved to decertify the FLSA collective. Decertification would end the collective treatment of the workers’ claims. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the named plaintiff and the workers who joined the case must be similarly situated, meaning they must share a factual or legal issue important to resolving their FLSA claims.
New York Paving argued that the workers had not established a common policy requiring uncompensated work. It also argued that the record showed union officials were responsible for any instructions to work off the clock. The court explained that an unwritten policy, or a policy enforced through third parties, may still support an FLSA claim when the employer knew about the work and did not take effective steps to prevent it.
Court’s Reasoning
The workers relied on declarations and deposition testimony describing the widespread nature of the alleged policy. They stated that all pavers were consistently expected to arrive early at the Yard to perform preparatory work. The court noted that New York Paving presented no evidence that it took steps to discourage this expectation. The court therefore found that the workers had made the required modest showing that Diaz was similarly situated to the workers who joined the collective.
Ruling
Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied New York Paving’s motion to decertify the collective action. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 236. The opinion decided whether the workers could proceed together as an FLSA collective; it did not determine whether New York Paving ultimately violated wage law or what damages, if any, were owed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.