Yu v. Shanghai Dumpling, Inc.

Background

Su Ping Yu brought an age-discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Shanghai Dumpling, Inc., Shanghai Café Deluxe, Shanghai Soup Dumpling, and individual defendants. She sought damages under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Yu worked as a waitress for the defendants for approximately 13 years. The opinion states that, after Shanghai Café Deluxe closed because of a gas leak, Yu was told she would be called back when the restaurant reopened. The restaurant rehired several coworkers but did not rehire Yu or a 58-year-old coworker; a younger employee was hired for Yu’s position. The opinion also states that Yu had supported a former coworker’s age-discrimination claim.

The court had previously entered default judgments against the corporate defendants on Yu’s discrimination and retaliation claims. It also entered default judgment against Defendant Wang on Yu’s New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim and against Defendant Gu on her New York State and New York City Human Rights Law discrimination and retaliation claims. The court found Defendant Lin not liable.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

The district court referred the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Figueredo. Based on Yu’s uncontested submissions, including affidavits and documentary evidence, Judge Figueredo recommended an award of back pay, liquidated damages, emotional-distress damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The recommendation calculated back pay at $120,641.16 after subtracting Yu’s earnings from later employment. It awarded an equal amount in liquidated damages based on the defendants’ willful violation of the federal age-discrimination law, and $25,000 for what it described as “garden-variety” emotional distress. It also recommended prejudgment interest on the back-pay and emotional-distress awards, post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.

District Court’s Ruling

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation or requested more time to object. Judge Carter therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. He adopted Judge Figueredo’s Report and Recommendation in full as the opinion of the court and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.

The opinion states that Yu’s complete damages award totaled $266,282.32. It also states, in one passage, that the recommendation included $8,626.94 in attorney’s fees and $400 in costs, while another passage describes attorney’s fees and costs together as $9,026.94. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.