Almonte v. JAM Maintenance LLC

Background

Modesto Almonte, Manuel Cabrera, Edwin Heredia, Jose Jimenez, Fabio Lopez, Gregorio Marte, Fiordaliza Ramirez, Tirso Ramirez, Gabriel Perez, and Manuel Vasquez sued JAM Maintenance LLC and Diego Ramirez, whom the opinion describes as the entity and individual who owned and operated the building-maintenance company that directly employed the plaintiffs. They also sued 1165 Gerard Realty LLC, 1170 Gerard Realty LLC, Beauty Realty LLC, Sagamore Realty LLC, Prospect 2000 Realty LLC, Robert Kaszovitz, and Akiva Kaszovitz, whom the opinion identifies as the owners of the apartment buildings where the plaintiffs worked.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation and by failing to provide accurate wage statements and written wage notices. They alleged that they worked as building porters and superintendents between 2017 and 2021, often seven days a week and approximately 70 hours per week.

The complaint alleged that JAM Maintenance worked exclusively for the Building Defendants at five apartment buildings. It further alleged that Robert and Akiva Kaszovitz had authority to hire and fire employees, determine wages and compensation, control working conditions and assignments, and supervise work at the properties. The plaintiffs alleged that JAM Maintenance and the Building Defendants jointly employed them and had combined annual revenues of at least $500,000, satisfying the Fair Labor Standards Act’s enterprise-coverage threshold.

Motions to dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Building Defendants and JAM Maintenance were joint employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The court explained that joint-employer status depends on the economic reality of the relationship rather than formal labels. It discussed two tests used in the Second Circuit. The formal-control test considers whether the alleged employer could hire and fire workers, supervise and control their schedules or working conditions, determine their pay, and maintain employment records. The functional-control test considers factors such as use of the alleged employer’s premises and equipment, supervision, whether the work is integral to the alleged employer’s operations, and whether the workers work exclusively or mainly for that employer.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs alleged enough facts to support a plausible joint-employer claim. The allegations included that Robert and Akiva Kaszovitz had authority to hire and fire the plaintiffs, controlled staffing, locations, duties, and pay, and regularly supervised or directed work. The plaintiffs also alleged that they worked only at the Building Defendants’ properties, were transferred among those properties, and that JAM Maintenance worked exclusively for the Building Defendants.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the allegations were merely conclusory. On a motion to dismiss, the court generally considers the facts stated in the complaint and certain referenced materials, rather than resolving factual disputes using evidence outside the complaint. The court also rejected Robert and Akiva Kaszovitz’s argument that the claims against them should be dismissed because service was three days late. The court had already determined that the delay did not harm them and would have allowed a brief extension, so the delay was not grounds for dismissal.

Motions for summary judgment

The defendants also moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court held that the motions were premature because discovery had not begun. It identified factual disputes concerning whether the Building Defendants had the power to hire and fire the plaintiffs, control their wages, and schedule and control their work assignments. The court also noted that the defendants did not respond to several allegations relevant to functional control, including that the plaintiffs worked solely at the Building Defendants’ properties and that JAM Maintenance worked exclusively for them.

Because the defendants had not shown that a reasonable jury could not rule for the plaintiffs, the court denied the motions for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. It ordered the defendants to file answers to the First Amended Complaint within 21 days of the opinion and order. The clerk was directed to close the motions at docket numbers 63 and 69.