Diaz v. New York Paving Inc.

Background

Edgardo Diaz sued New York Paving Inc. on behalf of himself and others, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. He alleged that pavers had to report to a central location, called the Yard, before going to their assigned paving sites. At the Yard, they selected, prepared, and loaded tools and prepared company trucks. Diaz alleged that he typically arrived around 5:15 a.m. so he could leave around 6:00 a.m. and reach the first paving site by 7:00 a.m., and that this preparation work occurred before official work hours.

Diaz asked the court to certify this proposed class: all people employed by New York Paving as pavers at any time from June 3, 2012, through the date of judgment. In December 2018, the court had conditionally certified a group of FLSA plaintiffs who had opted into the case. The parties then engaged in more than three years of discovery.

Class-Certification Standard

The court applied Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Numerosity asks whether the proposed class is so large that joining everyone in one lawsuit would be impractical. Commonality asks whether members share questions capable of class-wide answers. Typicality asks whether the representative’s claims arise from the same events and legal theory as the class’s claims. Adequacy asks whether the representative and attorneys will fairly protect the class’s interests.

The court also considered Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(3) requires common issues to predominate over individual issues and requires a class action to be superior to other available methods of resolving the dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court was satisfied that numerosity was met because Diaz alleged that the proposed class included more than 500 people, and New York Paving did not dispute that point.

The court also found adequacy. Diaz and the opt-in plaintiffs appeared aware of and engaged in the litigation, and Diaz’s attorneys had vigorously litigated the case for more than four years.

For commonality, the court focused on whether New York Paving had a practice of requiring pavers to report to the Yard and perform tasks before officially clocking in. The court explained that work can be compensable under the FLSA when the employer knew or should have known about it and when the work is an integral and indispensable part of the employee’s primary duties. The court found that the alleged preparation work—such as collecting tools, gathering protective equipment, obtaining spare parts, and preparing trucks—appeared integral to the pavers’ daily assignments. Whether New York Paving had a practice of requiring this work and knew about it presented common questions capable of class-wide resolution, even though the company disputed having a written policy.

The court rejected New York Paving’s argument that differences among crews and their tools required individual trials. Differences in whether a worker spent, for example, 30 minutes or 65 minutes preparing tools and vehicles went to damages—the amount of unpaid regular or overtime wages—not the central liability question of whether the preparation work was integral to the workers’ duties. The court also rejected the argument that differences between laborers and foremen prevented certification, noting that the liability issue concerning alleged failure to fully pay overtime predominated over individual damages issues.

The court found a class action superior to individual lawsuits because the proposed class numbered in the 500s and common litigation would avoid duplicative and overlapping discovery.

Disposition

The court granted Diaz’s motion to certify the class. It ordered the parties to file a joint status report by April 18, 2023. The opinion did not decide whether New York Paving ultimately violated the FLSA or New York Labor Law, nor did it determine the amount of wages owed.