Black v. Cakor Restaurant, Inc.

Background

Kara Elizabeth Black sued Cakor Restaurant, Inc., Bridge Café Inc., Ismet Sujak, and Sultania Sujak under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. She alleged that she worked as a bartender, performed substantial non-tipped duties, was paid less than the required tip-credit rate, worked more than 40 hours per week, and was paid fixed weekly salaries. She also alleged that the defendants did not keep required records of her working time.

Black alleged that, after an unsuccessful mediation, the defendants began repeatedly contacting her and her husband, Ard Puka. She alleged that Ismet Sujak sent Puka a message threatening to report him to immigration authorities and suggesting that Black had married him for money. Black moved to add FLSA and New York Labor Law retaliation claims, add Cakor Restaurant Corp. as a defendant based on its identification in paystubs, and obtain a preliminary injunction against further harassment, intimidation, or retaliation.

For purposes of the motions, the court treated the well-pleaded allegations in the proposed amended complaint as true.

Leave to Amend

The court granted Black’s motion to amend. It held that the proposed retaliation claims were not futile because Black adequately alleged the elements of a preliminary retaliation case: she engaged in protected activity by filing the wage lawsuit; the alleged immigration-related threat could dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing wage rights and therefore could qualify as an adverse employment action; and the timing of the alleged calls and message supported a causal connection.

The court also allowed Black to add Cakor Restaurant Corp. as a defendant. The defendants did not object and did not show prejudice or bad faith. The court further concluded that the proposed addition was not time-barred because Cakor Restaurant Corp. was identified through discovery as a payment entity for Cakor Restaurant, Inc., and the amendment could relate back to the original pleading.

Preliminary Injunction

The court granted Black’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is temporary court-ordered relief issued before the case is finally decided. The court evaluated likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest.

The court found that Black had shown a likelihood of success on her retaliation claims based on the alleged protected activity, the immigration-related threat, and the timing of the alleged retaliatory conduct. The court stated that the defendants had not refuted Black’s interpretation of the message for purposes of the injunction proceeding, although more evidence might be needed at trial.

The court found a likely risk of irreparable harm because the alleged threats could expose Black and Puka to criminal or administrative action and could discourage Black and other employees from enforcing their wage rights or supporting her claims. It concluded that the defendants would suffer little hardship from a narrowly tailored injunction and that the injunction would serve the public interest by supporting enforcement of wage laws.

Order

The court ordered Ismet Sujak and Sultania Sujak not to contact, or cause others to contact, government officials or agencies about Black’s or Puka’s immigration status. It also ordered them not to retaliate against Black in any form. A violation could result in civil contempt, criminal contempt, or both. The injunction remains in effect until further court order or resolution of the case.

The court waived the bond requirement, so Black was not required to post security. It directed Black to file the amended complaint by December 19, 2022, and closed the motion at Docket 18. The opinion also included a deadline stating that the defendants must respond to the amended complaint by January 6, 2022, which appears inconsistent with the December 15, 2022 opinion date.