Aponte v. Clinton Street Pizza Inc.

Background

Nancy Aponte and Angelo Gabriel Alves Marques sued their former employer, Clinton Street Pizza Inc., doing business as Rizzo’s Fine Pizza, and three individual owners or managers: Francesco Taormina, Amedeo Orlando, and Alexander Lyudmir. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Aponte worked as a server from June 2014 through February 2019. Marques worked as a cashier from August 2015 through February 2019. The opinion states that Aponte worked approximately 36 hours per week and was paid $5 per hour, while Marques worked approximately 70 hours per week and was paid $9 per hour. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants withheld tips, failed to pay all required wages and overtime, failed to pay spread-of-hours pay, and failed to provide required wage notices and statements.

Plaintiffs also alleged workplace harassment. They alleged that Orlando made sexual comments to Aponte and touched her legs and back. They alleged that Orlando and Taormina made homophobic comments about Marques, mocked his sexual orientation, and made comments about his interest in male customers and coworkers.

Taormina settled with the plaintiffs, and Lyudmir became subject to a judgment after plaintiffs accepted his offer of judgment. Clinton Street Pizza and Orlando were properly served but did not answer or otherwise appear. The Clerk entered defaults against both defendants. Neither defendant responded to the court’s order to explain why default judgment should not be entered.

Court’s Analysis

Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment is a two-step process: the Clerk first enters a defendant’s default, and the court then determines whether the well-pleaded allegations establish a legal basis for liability. Because Clinton Street Pizza and Orlando did not appear, the court treated the well-pleaded liability allegations as admitted, but still examined whether those allegations stated valid claims.

Wage claims. The court held that the amended complaint adequately alleged FLSA enterprise coverage. Plaintiffs alleged that Clinton Street Pizza conducted approximately $780,000 in business annually and handled food, alcohol, cutlery, linens, and plates that had moved in interstate commerce. They also adequately alleged FLSA violations based on tip withholding, failure to pay for all hours worked, payment below the applicable minimum wage, and failure to pay overtime.

The court also held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded NYLL claims. Those claims concerned tip withholding, minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, and required wage notices and statements. Because the FLSA claims supplied a federal basis for the case, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—over the NYLL claims.

Harassment claims. The court held that Aponte adequately pleaded a Title VII sexual-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claim against Clinton Street Pizza. Plaintiffs alleged that the company had at least 15 employees, operated in interstate commerce, and that Aponte had obtained the required authorization from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue. The court found that the alleged sexual comments and physical touching were sufficiently severe and pervasive to state a Title VII claim. Title VII claims were not asserted against the individual defendants because individuals are not subject to liability under that statute.

The court also held that Aponte adequately pleaded a hostile-work-environment claim under the NYCHRL based on gender discrimination and sexual harassment. It held that Marques adequately pleaded an NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claim based on sexual-orientation discrimination. The NYCHRL standard is broader than the Title VII standard: a plaintiff generally must show that the person was treated less well because of a protected characteristic, rather than prove harassment that was severe or pervasive.

The court stated that plaintiffs had not pleaded facts supporting their Title VII or NYCHRL retaliation claims. The opinion’s ruling therefore addressed the adequately pleaded wage and harassment claims, not a successful retaliation theory.

Disposition

The court GRANTED plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Clinton Street Pizza Inc. and Orlando. It referred the case to Magistrate Judge Moses for an inquest—an evidentiary process to determine the amount of damages and attorneys’ fees. The opinion did not determine the final amount of damages or fees.