Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company Inc.

Background

Luisa Santos de Oliveira brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. She alleged that Club Azure failed to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, and spread-of-hours wages; failed to provide required wage notices and accurate wage statements; failed to reimburse equipment costs; and misappropriated tips. The opinion states that Club Azure conducted business as “Scores.”

After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its March 24, 2022 decision, the court granted Club Azure summary judgment on the claims concerning a written wage notice at hiring and accurate wage statements. Santos de Oliveira had not opposed Club Azure’s motion on the equipment-cost and tip-misappropriation claims, and Club Azure prevailed on those claims as well. The court granted Santos de Oliveira partial summary judgment on overtime wages, the New York written tip-credit-notice requirement, spread-of-hours wages, and liquidated damages. It treated the federal tip-credit-notice dispute as moot because Santos de Oliveira could not receive double recovery of back wages under both federal and New York law.

Motion for Reconsideration

Club Azure moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration and reargument. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence is available, or correction is needed to prevent clear error or manifest injustice. It is not intended to let a losing party relitigate issues or present new arguments.

Club Azure argued that the court had confused the written wage-notice claim with the separate tip-credit-notice claim. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the claims involved different notice requirements. The court also rejected Club Azure’s argument that its federal and New York labor-law posters gave sufficient tip-credit notice. The posters addressed minimum-wage obligations generally but did not specifically tell Santos de Oliveira that Club Azure intended to use her tips to satisfy its minimum-wage obligation under New York law.

The court also rejected Club Azure’s argument that Santos de Oliveira had abandoned her overtime claims. Her summary-judgment opposition and statement of facts referred to those claims. The court found no error in its spread-of-hours ruling because Club Azure’s own submissions showed that she worked 10.1 hours on December 2, 2017. Finally, the court held that Club Azure’s reliance on advice from its human-resources manager did not establish good faith sufficient to undermine the liquidated-damages ruling.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels denied Club Azure’s motion for reconsideration and reargument. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 82. The opinion does not state a new damages amount or otherwise resolve the amount of damages resulting from the earlier liability rulings.