Weng v. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-09596
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Weng v. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp, Judge Ramos held Rong Yang jointly liable for the plaintiffs’ unpaid-wage claims as a joint employer.
Jie Weng and San Dang Wang may recover damages for the defendants’ undisputed wage-law violations, and Rong Yang was held jointly responsible for those damages as a joint employer. The opinion also directed the parties to calculate damages and allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to seek attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
Weng v. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp concerns claims by Jie Weng and San Dang Wang that their restaurant employers violated federal and New York wage laws. The defendants conceded that the plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages, overtime, or extra pay for long workdays, and were not given required wage notices or wage statements.
The only disputed issue at the bench trial was whether Rong Yang was an employer under those laws. The court found that he owned the restaurant, was listed on its liquor license and lease, participated in its financial affairs, paid employees, and exercised control over their schedules and working conditions.
Judge Ramos concluded that Rong Yang was a joint employer under both laws and was jointly responsible for any damages owed for the conceded violations. The parties were directed to submit agreed damage calculations, after which the plaintiffs’ lawyers could seek fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Weng v. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp · No. 1:19-cv-09596
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Jie Weng and San Dang Wang sued New Shanghai Deluxe Corp, Yeah Shanghai Deluxe Inc, and several individuals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). They sought unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and damages for the defendants’ failure to provide wage notices and wage statements.
The court held a one-day bench trial, meaning the judge decided the facts and law without a jury. Defense counsel conceded that the plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages, overtime, or spread-of-hours compensation, that the defendants did not provide wage notices or wage statements, and that the defendants kept no records of the plaintiffs’ work hours or pay. Counsel stated that the only disputed issue was whether Rong Yang qualified as an employer.
Findings of Fact
Wang worked as an assistant chef at the restaurant from April 20, 2014, through October 25,
- She generally worked either 68 or 72 hours per week and was paid a monthly salary that ranged from $1,500 to $2,400. Weng worked as an assistant chef from August 30, 2010, through October 2,
- He generally worked 68 hours per week and was paid $2,400 per month initially and $2,800 per month beginning in
- Neither plaintiff received wage notices or wage statements.
The court found that Yu Lin owned and managed the restaurant, with authority to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and maintain employment records. Mei Fang managed the restaurant and hired the plaintiffs. Yu Jun, Yu Lin’s brother, owned the restaurant until 2017, when he gave it to Rong Yang, Yu Lin and Mei Fang’s son.
Rong Yang was listed as New Shanghai’s principal on its liquor-license registration and signed the restaurant lease as its president. His name was also on the restaurant’s bank account and business-loan applications. Although Rong Yang testified that he did not work at the restaurant or manage its employees, the court found the plaintiffs’ testimony credible. The court found that Rong Yang was present and worked at the restaurant on at least one occasion, paid employees, and exercised control over their schedules and working conditions.
Legal Standard and Analysis
The FLSA and NYLL impose liability on an “employer.” The court applied the Second Circuit’s “economic reality” test, which considers whether the individual had the power to hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled their work schedules or conditions, determined their pay, and maintained employment records. The factors are considered together, and no single factor is required or decisive.
The court found that three of the four factors supported treating Rong Yang as an employer. The hiring-and-firing factor weighed slightly in favor of that conclusion because Rong Yang owned the restaurant and had asked Yu Lin for help running it, although Rong Yang denied hiring or firing anyone. The supervision factor supported employer status because the plaintiffs testified that Rong Yang, known to them as “Yang Yang,” gave employees orders and directed their work schedules and conditions. The payment factor also weighed slightly in favor because Rong Yang gave the plaintiffs their paychecks and was connected to the restaurant’s bank account. There was no evidence that he maintained employment records.
The court also relied on Rong Yang’s financial and formal connection to the business. His name appeared on the bank account and loan applications, and he was identified as the principal on the liquor license and as president on the lease. The court rejected the argument that Rong Yang’s status as a student and part-time worker elsewhere prevented him from being an employer.
Disposition
The court held that Rong Yang was a joint employer under the FLSA and NYLL. It therefore held him jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded for the defendants’ undisputed wage-law violations. The court did not determine the damages amount in this opinion. It directed the parties to submit damage calculations by October 28, 2022, after which plaintiffs’ counsel could apply for attorney’s fees and costs.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.