Nunez v. Executive Le Soleil New York LLC

Background

Alfredo Nunez and Joseph Tejada sued their former employer, Executive Le Soleil New York LLC, under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law. They alleged that they were non-exempt hourly employees who performed physical tasks for more than 25% of their workdays, making them manual laborers under the statute. Nunez worked as a bellhop and night auditor from August 2015 through May 2016, and Tejada worked as a bellhop from April 2018 through March 2020. The employer paid both plaintiffs twice per month. The plaintiffs alleged that Section 191 required weekly payment and that the delayed payments temporarily deprived them of money they were owed.

The plaintiffs also asserted claims on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated manual laborers employed by the defendant at the hotel from October 8, 2015, through the present. They alleged that common questions included whether the employer paid employees every two weeks and whether that practice was lawful.

Standing Challenge

The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal, concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that the court can remedy.

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged such an injury. It reasoned that temporarily withholding money to which a person is entitled is a concrete economic harm because the person cannot use, spend, or invest the money during the period of delay. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had to provide more details about how they would have used the money or calculate the lost value of the delayed wages. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Class Allegations

The defendant also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the class allegations. It argued that determining which employees qualified as manual laborers would require individualized review of each employee’s job title and duties, preventing the proposed class from meeting the requirements for class certification.

The court held that this challenge was premature. Whether common issues predominate and whether the plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the proposed class are issues ordinarily addressed during the class-certification process, after discovery creates a more complete factual record. The court stated that the defendant could renew its arguments at that stage, but denied the motion to strike at that time. The court did not decide whether the class would ultimately be certified.

Disposition

The court denied the defendant’s motion in full. It ordered the defendant to answer the amended complaint by May 31, 2023. It also ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint letter by June 14, 2023, addressing mediation, a settlement conference, or, if they wished to proceed directly to discovery, a proposed case-management plan.