Garcia v. Janus Homecare Agency, Inc.

Background

Raquel Garcia sued Janus Homecare Agency, Inc., Happy Life Home Health Agency Inc., Cupid Homecare Agency, LLC, and Michael Pagan under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Garcia alleged that she and other non-exempt employees were not paid proper overtime premiums, were paid for fewer hours because Defendants rounded clock-in and clock-out times, were paid late, and did not receive proper wage notices and statements.

Garcia sought conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. That preliminary step allows potential plaintiffs to receive notice and choose whether to join the case. The court explained that Garcia needed to make a modest factual showing that she and the potential opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated and affected by a common unlawful policy. The court does not decide the ultimate merits or resolve factual disputes at this stage.

Conditional Certification

The court held that Garcia sufficiently alleged that the Corporate Defendants operated as one integrated FLSA enterprise. The allegations stated that Janus handled payroll and human resources, Cupid Homecare handled employee retirement plans, Happy Life handled daily homecare operations, and Pagan exercised operational control over employees. The Corporate Defendants allegedly shared centralized payroll, human resources, and administrative departments and used the same phone number, websites, and social media.

The court also found Garcia’s allegations sufficient, although it described them as close to conclusory. Garcia alleged that workers in the relevant positions had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions and were subject to the same wage practices. Her declaration identified four employees with whom she regularly discussed pay practices and described discussions with approximately thirty coworkers at recurring meetings. The court therefore conditionally certified a collective consisting of current and former non-exempt home attendants, home health aides, personal care assistants, intake coordinators, nurses, and nursing assistants employed by Defendants during the three years before the filing of the original Complaint, identified in the order as April 20, 2020.

The court specifically excluded the broader category of “all current and former non-exempt employees” because that wording could include administrative, executive, and other employees who might not be similarly situated to Garcia.

Notice and Related Requests

The court authorized notice to potential collective members. It selected a 60-day opt-in period instead of Garcia’s proposed 90-day period. It also allowed the notice to be sent in English and Spanish.

The court granted Garcia’s request for employee contact information, limited to potential opt-in plaintiffs in the specified job categories who worked for Defendants from April 20, 2020, to the present. Defendants were ordered to provide names, titles, employment dates, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and known telephone numbers within two weeks of the order, in any reasonably usable form.

The court denied Garcia’s request for equitable tolling without prejudice. Equitable tolling can pause a filing deadline in rare and exceptional circumstances. The court found that the motion had been pending for approximately one month and that Garcia had not shown that potential opt-in plaintiffs would lose claims because of the delay. The court left potential opt-in plaintiffs free to make a later application upon an appropriate showing of exceptional circumstances and diligence.

The court also denied without prejudice Garcia’s request for potential members’ Social Security numbers to conduct address searches if mailed notices were returned. After Garcia modified the proposed notice, the court directed her to resubmit it for approval. Once approved, the notice could be sent by mail, email, and/or text message.

Disposition

The court granted Garcia’s motion for conditional class certification, court-authorized notice under section 216(b) of the FLSA, and an order requiring Defendants to produce contact information. The order addressed only the preliminary certification and notice process; it did not decide whether Defendants ultimately violated the FLSA or New York Labor Law.