Sarr v. Sinergia, Inc.

Background

Adam Sarr sued Sinergia, Inc. and Donald Lash under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Sarr alleged that Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, including travel time between assignments and meal breaks when employees were required to work. Sarr sought conditional certification of an FLSA collective consisting of all non-exempt Sinergia workers employed during the previous six years.

At the notice stage of an FLSA collective action, a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential opt-in workers may be similarly situated and were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court does not decide at this stage whether an actual legal violation occurred. The court noted that Sinergia disputed whether the FLSA applied to it, but assumed for purposes of this motion that the FLSA applied.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Sarr met the notice-stage burden for direct support professionals. Sarr submitted a declaration describing conversations with coworkers, including ten direct support professionals, about automatic meal-break deductions and unpaid travel time. Sarr specifically identified three direct support professionals—Ravan, whose last name was not provided, Tanisha De Jesus, and Tiffany Thomas—and stated that they discussed similar practices. The court found that these allegations were cursory and barely sufficient, but that personal observations and conversations provided enough detail under the modest notice-stage standard.

The court denied certification for job categories other than direct support professionals. Sarr provided no information about the duties, hours, or experiences of workers in other categories, including home attendants and home care agents. The court therefore narrowed the proposed collective to the job category supported by the evidence.

Notice Requirements

The court ruled that notice could reach only direct support professionals who worked for Sinergia at any time on or after May 4, 2019, three years before the complaint was filed. It rejected the proposed six-year period because the FLSA generally provides a two-year limitations period, extended to three years for willful violations, and because the court found equitable tolling inappropriate. Equitable tolling is a rule that can extend a filing period in exceptional circumstances; the court found that Sarr had not shown such circumstances here.

The court set a 60-day period for potential plaintiffs to opt into the collective. It also ruled that Defendants did not have to provide potential collective members’ Social Security numbers or post notices in clients’ private residences. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and jointly submit a revised notice and consent form, or a joint letter describing any unresolved disagreements, by October 21, 2022.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted Sarr’s motion for collective certification in part. The court conditionally certified a collective of direct support professionals who worked at Sinergia at any time on or after May 4, 2019, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 26.