18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 97 descriptions, and the timing and circumstances of at least some of the conversations. Id . For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Keawsri, et al. v. Ramen-Ya Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150399 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant employees, filed a collective and class action alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide pay-rate notices, failure to establish tip sharing and pooling arrangements, failure to maintain accurate and complete records, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to pay overtime and spread-of-hours compensation in violation of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs offered several declarations and deposition testimony in support of their motion. Plaintiffs contended that they were similarly-situated because they were all employed as servers at Defendant’s 3rd Street and the 4th Street Restaurants during the periods of employment and performed the same work. Plaintiffs all had the same managers and were subject to common employee guidelines and procedures, including wage policies and tip policies. For each Plaintiff, Defendants maintained a separate spreadsheet recording the number of hours worked at the 3rd Street Restaurant and the 4th Street Restaurant on each shift on each day and the amount of tips credited to the server on that shift, and for all of these servers the amount of the tips credited for that day that were paid by check and in cash. Id . at *28. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated because: (i) some worked at unrelated locations while employed; and (ii) some relocated out of the country after their period of employment ended. Id . Defendant further asserted that Plaintiffs failed to produce documents regarding the hours they worked, failed to provide their social security numbers, and switched shifts and reimbursed one another without Defendants’ knowledge. Id. The Court found that Plaintiffs made the requisite showing required to demonstrate that they were similarly- situated for purposes of conditional certification. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs and the proposed collective action members were all united by a common question of law of whether Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices violated the FLSA. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Kwan, et al. v. Sahara Dreams Co. II, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126424 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021). Plaintiff, a floor manager, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified floor managers as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff asserted that all floor managers were subject to Defendant’s policies of not paying for all hours worked and not paying overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff attested that she personally observed and discussed these policies and practices with several other employees and all were subject to the some alleged wage & hour violations. The Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s previous recommendation that Plaintiff’s proposed collective action of all management employees was overbroad, but it found that the record was sufficient to demonstrate that that floor managers who shared the same job title and duty location as Plaintiff were similarly-situated within the meaning of the FLSA. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s affidavit contained sufficient evidence that demonstrated that floor managers were victims of the same time-shaving and misclassification policies alleged. The Court held that Plaintiff met the requisite burden required for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For these reasons, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Lawrence, et al. v. NYC Medical Practice, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63800 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of plastic surgery office employees, filed a collective and class action alleging that Defendant violated various provisions of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Plaintiffs filed motions for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 on their state law claims. The Court granted the motions. Plaintiffs contended that they regularly worked 60 hours per week without being paid overtime compensation, were required to perform off-the-clock work, were required to perform work while at home without compensation, and that Defendant falsified their time records. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all current and former receptionists and patient coordinators subject to Defendant’s policies over the previous 3 years. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered numerous declarations as well as deposition testimony showing that Plaintiffs and 50 patient coordinators and 20 to 30 receptionists employed by Defendants were subject to the same employment practices that violated the FLSA. Plaintiffs all attested that they worked more 40 hours a week and did not receive any of the overtime pay owed.