Amaya v. La Grande Boucherie LLC

Background

Andrea Amaya, Bencher Montebon, Olsi Velo, Jasmin Dzogovic, Richard Anton, and Sarah Pruitt sued La Grande Boucherie LLC, The Group US Management LLC, and Emil Stefkov. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). They brought the FLSA claims as a collective action and the NYLL claims as a proposed class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants operated a tip pool from about November 2020 through early 2023 but did not distribute all incoming tips to food-service workers. They pointed to differences between amounts shown in the Toast application, which tracked tips received, and the Payday application, which tracked tips distributed. They also alleged that two captains, Susanna Holder and Aaron Blankfield, participated in the tip pool even though they acted in a managerial capacity and did not directly serve customers.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants withheld call-in pay from workers who were asked to report for scheduled shifts and then sent home without pay. They alleged that defendants required female workers to wear white button-down shirts, black dress pants, suspenders, and black dress shoes, and required male workers to wear white button-down shirts, black dress pants, vests, black ties, and black dress shoes, while requiring the workers to pay for and maintain the clothing themselves.

Dzogovic separately alleged retaliation. She said she retained counsel and notified defendants in January 2023 that she intended to pursue wage and tip claims. She alleged that, after she and the other plaintiffs told defendants in June 2023 that they would proceed with the lawsuit, defendants issued her two pretextual write-ups on August 10, 2023, and terminated her employment on August 17, 2023.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. On that motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept legal conclusions as facts.

Court’s Analysis

New York minimum-wage claim. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ NYLL minimum-wage claim. The complaint did not allege that any service worker’s average hourly pay was below the applicable minimum wage, or that the alleged tip misappropriation caused pay to fall below that minimum.

Tip-retention claims. The court allowed the FLSA and NYLL claims concerning unlawful retention of tips to proceed. Federal law prohibits an employer from keeping employees’ tips, including by allowing managers or supervisors to retain part of them. New York law similarly restricts sharing tips with managers or people who do not perform direct customer service.

The court declined to consider a defense declaration and screenshots offered to show that the tip records contained no discrepancies. Those materials were not incorporated into the complaint or integral to it, and the plaintiffs challenged their accuracy and authenticity. The court also concluded that whether Holder and Blankfield exercised managerial authority was a fact-intensive question. The complaint’s allegations that they acted as managers, did not directly serve customers, and had authority to void checks, discipline workers, assign tasks, and oversee the restaurant were sufficient at the pleading stage.

Call-in pay. The court denied dismissal of the NYLL call-in-pay claim. The plaintiffs alleged specific instances in which Pruitt, Anton, Dzogovic, Amaya, and Montebon were asked to report for work, did so, and were sent home without receiving wages. The court held that these allegations were detailed enough to support a plausible claim under New York’s hospitality wage rules.

Uniform costs. The court denied dismissal of the uniform-cost claim. New York law requires reimbursement for required uniforms but excludes ordinary basic street clothing. The court held that whether the specified shirts, pants, suspenders, vests, ties, and shoes were ordinary street clothing or qualifying uniforms was better resolved as a factual matter. The allegations that the required clothing was unusual enough to constitute a uniform were sufficient to continue the claim.

Retaliation. The court denied dismissal of Dzogovic’s FLSA and NYLL retaliation claims. The complaint alleged protected activity known to defendants, adverse employment actions, and a causal connection. The alleged two-month period between Dzogovic’s June 2023 notice that she would proceed with the lawsuit and the August 2023 write-ups and termination was sufficiently close in time to support causation at this stage. The court also found it plausible that defendants singled out Dzogovic because the complaint described her as particularly instrumental in bringing the case.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. It granted the motion as to the plaintiffs’ NYLL minimum-wage claim and denied it as to the remaining claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.