Ramirez v. Liberty One Group LLC

Background

Ivelisse Ramirez sued Liberty One Group LLC and Liberty One Brooklyn LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). She alleges that Defendants used a time-shaving practice: her manager directed her to clock out at about 4:30 p.m. and then required her to continue cleaning, so that the additional work was not recorded or paid. She also brings claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws and the New York Labor Law, but those claims were not at issue in this motion.

Ramirez sought conditional certification of an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). At this early stage, conditional certification requires a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and other workers were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The court does not decide factual disputes, credibility, or the ultimate merits at this stage.

Liberty One and Liberty Brooklyn

The court concluded that both Defendants were proper parties for purposes of the motion. Ramirez alleged that the entities shared office space, a human-resources department, executive officers, and a telephone number; that Liberty One employees hired and assigned workers to Liberty Brooklyn; and that Liberty One and Liberty Brooklyn had a parent-company and subsidiary relationship. Accepting those allegations at this stage, the court found sufficient support for treating the entities as a single integrated enterprise that could be jointly liable under the FLSA. The court noted that discovery could ultimately disprove that theory.

Conditional Certification

The court found that Ramirez sufficiently alleged an FLSA overtime violation. Her records showed 16 weeks with 40 or more paid hours, and six additional weeks with between 37.5 and 40 paid hours. She alleged that approximately two and one-half hours of unpaid work occurred each week because of the daily time-shaving practice. The court held that these allegations were sufficiently specific for this stage of the case.

The court also found enough evidence of a common policy or plan. Ramirez relied on her own declaration, describing her experience, observations of other workers, conversations with four cleaning staff members, the manager involved, and employees’ alleged fear of retaliation. The court emphasized that Ramirez had only barely met the low initial standard and that a later review after discovery could result in decertification or division of the collective.

The court limited the collective to cleaning staff at the 249 Varet Street location. Ramirez had not provided enough detail to include non-cleaning employees or workers at other locations. The court therefore granted conditional certification only for cleaning workers employed by Defendants at 249 Varet Street within the three years before the complaint was filed.

Employee Information and Notice

The court ordered Defendants to provide, within fourteen days, the names, titles, compensation rates, employment dates, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and known telephone numbers of employees within the putative collective, in Microsoft Excel or an equivalent format. The court denied any request for Social Security numbers because Ramirez had not specifically shown that the sensitive information was necessary.

The court approved notice with modifications. Notice could cover the three years before the July 11, 2022 filing of the complaint, rather than six years. The court denied Ramirez’s request for equitable tolling without prejudice to individual applications by opt-in plaintiffs who could make an individualized showing that tolling was appropriate. The court also reduced the opt-in period from 90 days to 60 days.

The court denied Defendants’ request to remove references to New York Labor Law claims from the notice. It approved distributing the notice by mail, email, and text message, and approved posting it in employee common areas at the 249 Varet Street location. Ramirez was ordered to submit a revised notice within fourteen days for the court’s approval.

Disposition

The court held that the motion for conditional collective certification and court-facilitated notice was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Conditional certification was granted for cleaning workers at 249 Varet Street during the specified three-year period. The motion for equitable tolling was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal on an individual basis. The motion to send notice was GRANTED with the stated modifications, and Defendants were ordered to provide the specified employee information within fourteen days.