Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp.

Background

Sun Yeul Hong moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for partial summary judgment against Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., Kap Won Kim, Myong Su Kim, and Dae Kyu Kim. He sought a ruling that the defendants were jointly and separately liable under the New York Labor Law for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, violations of wage-statement requirements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Hong presented evidence that he worked for Mommy’s Jamaican from May 1990 through September 6, 2020, was not paid New York’s minimum wage during 2019 and 2020, and never received overtime pay. The defendants did not dispute that Hong would have been entitled to minimum and overtime wages if he qualified as an employee covered by the statute. They argued, however, that he was exempt from those requirements under the administrative exemption. The defendants also disputed the number of hours Hong worked.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion. The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden, and the opposing party must then present admissible evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to decide in its favor.

Administrative Exemption

The New York Labor Law excludes certain employees working in executive, administrative, or professional capacities from its wage protections. For the administrative exemption to apply, the employee’s primary duty must involve office or nonmanual work directly related to the employer’s management policies or general operations; the employee must regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment; and the employee must satisfy the applicable salary requirement.

The court explained that the administrative exemption generally does not cover production or sales work, which is distinct from general administrative work involved in running a business. An employer asserting the exemption has the burden of proving that it applies. Because the defendants had allegedly failed to keep adequate records or provide required wage statements, the New York Labor Law also required them to prove by a preponderance of the evidence what wages, benefits, and wage supplements they paid.

Hong described duties that included cooking for other employees, restocking shelves, displaying fish and meat products, cleaning animal waste, removing snow, and salting the sidewalk. The defendants did not dispute those descriptions. Kap Won Kim, however, declared that Hong’s primary duties were administrative and included negotiating supplier prices, researching replacement products, calculating prices, and anticipating consumer trends. He also stated that Hong exercised discretion and independent judgment and was the highest-paid employee.

The court held that genuine disputes existed about Hong’s primary duty and whether he regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment. The court noted that an employee may perform some nonadministrative tasks and still qualify for the exemption if administrative work is the employee’s primary duty, but that issue could not be resolved on the evidence presented at this stage.

Salary Evidence

The parties also presented conflicting evidence about Hong’s compensation for 2019 and 2020. Kap Won testified that Hong received slightly more than $900 per week in cash and checks and that this was also his approximate compensation in 2020 and the prior years. Hong’s statement listed weekly amounts below the applicable salary threshold, based on the cash and checks he believed he received.

The defendants responded that Hong had received at least $1,200 per week during his last six years, counting meals and transportation in addition to salary. Kap Won stated that the defendants could not determine the exact value of those benefits but believed that they raised Hong’s total compensation above $1,200 per week. Hong disputed the value and nature of those benefits, including whether the meals met New York’s requirements for wage credits and whether he received a transportation allowance.

The court declined to resolve these conflicts. It stated that Hong’s contrary assertions in a reply factual statement were not properly before the court because he had not sought permission to submit that reply, but it also emphasized that a court cannot decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence at summary judgment. Even if the defendants’ evidence appeared questionable, the court found that they had offered enough evidence to prevent summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Hong’s motion for partial summary judgment at Docket Number 80. The court denied as moot the defendants’ motions to strike portions of Hong’s motion and his reply. The court stated that it could revisit whether the defendants had established the administrative exemption at the close of the defendants’ case at trial.