Alvarez v. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC

Background

Ten plaintiffs sued Fine Craftsman Group, LLC (FCG), Joseph Zyskowski, and Krzysztof Pogorzelski, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), New York Labor Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. From 2017 to 2019, FCG provided residential construction services in New York and New Jersey. Pogorzelski was FCG’s sole member, and Zyskowski worked as a project manager. The plaintiffs performed construction work for FCG, except Alvarez, who worked as a cleaner.

After discovery ended, the defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. In an earlier report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis recommended denying the defendants’ motion and granting the plaintiffs’ motion in part and denying it in part. The district court adopted that recommendation except as to the overtime issue, which it sent back to Magistrate Judge Willis for further consideration after the plaintiffs submitted additional evidence that had been omitted because of a clerical error.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must review the evidence even when the motion is unopposed. When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge reviews it for clear error—that is, whether the record leaves the judge with a firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Court’s analysis

The plaintiffs submitted requests to admit and the defendants’ responses. The defendants admitted that they never paid overtime. The plaintiffs also submitted samples of the defendants’ records showing that plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a week and that none received a premium overtime rate. The defendants did not oppose the letter motion or the exhibits containing this evidence.

The court found that the plaintiffs presented clear and undisputed evidence that the defendants failed to pay overtime to plaintiffs who worked more than 40 hours per week. The court therefore determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment on the nonpayment-of-overtime issue.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Willis’s second report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of nonpayment of overtime and directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at ECF No. 74. The opinion does not state the amount of damages or the disposition of the other claims.