Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boutros v. Jtc Painting & Decorating Corp.

United States District Court, Second Circuit

June 19, 2013

KAMAL BOUTROS and SAMUEL ZUNIGA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,


PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge.

Kamal Boutros and Samuel Zuniga bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated plaintiffs, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") §§ 191 et seq., by defendants JTC Painting and Decorating Corporation ("JTC") and John Caruso, one of JTC's officers. Plaintiffs move for conditional collective action certification and court-approved notice. For the reasons that follow, that motion is denied. Plaintiffs' FLSA overtime claims are dismissed, without prejudice, and plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

I. Background[1]

A. Factual Background

JTC is a painting contractor that provides commercial painting and decorating services in the greater New York City area. FAC ¶ 13. JTC is a member of an industry group that is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the painter's union. That agreement provides for a 35hour workweek, with any weekly hours worked above 35 hours being paid at a rate of time-anda-half. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. Caruso is an owner and/or officer of JTC. Id. ¶ 12.

Kamal Boutros was employed by JTC as a painter from July 2006 to November 2011. Boutros Decl. ¶ 1. During that time, his hourly rate of pay ranged from $33.50 to $35. Id. ¶ 3. Samuel Zuniga has been employed by JTC as a painter since September 2008. Zuniga Decl. ¶ 1. His hourly rate of pay has ranged from $34 to $36. Id. ¶ 3.

In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that they "regularly worked in excess of 35 hours a week, as well as regularly in excess of 40 hours per week." FAC ¶ 19. However, they allege, they were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA, but rather were paid straight time wages. Id. Plaintiffs allege that "[d]efendants would regularly pay plaintiffs a payroll check for the first 35 hours worked in a week, and in cash or with a non-payroll check for hours in excess of 35 hours per week." Id. ¶ 20.

Plaintiffs repeat these allegations in their declarations submitted in support of this motion. Both state that they "regularly worked more than 40 hours a week." Boutros Decl. ¶ 6; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 6. Both state that they were "rarely" paid the overtime rate for any hours over 40 worked, the only exceptions being when they worked on public works projects, such that government inspectors were present, or when a shop steward from the union was present. Boutros Decl. ¶ 7; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 7. Both state that JTC regularly paid them with a payroll check for the first 35 hours worked, but paid in cash or with a non-payroll check for any hours worked in excess of 35 hours per week. Boutros Decl. ¶ 8; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 8. Finally, both state that their lawyers showed them payroll records provided by JTC, but that those records "consistently and extensively understate how many hours I worked every week." Boutros Decl. ¶ 10; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 10.

Plaintiffs allege that JTC employed more than 100 employees who worked as painters during the relevant time period, and that JTC failed to pay each of these employees the proper overtime rate. FAC ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiffs allege that these employees are similarly situated, and were subject to the same unlawful treatment as plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 24. Both plaintiffs state in their declarations that they worked with "dozens of other painters" who did substantially the same work and who had the same terms and conditions of employment. Boutros Decl. ¶ 4; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 4. Both further state that "I discussed [the overtime compensation] issue with other painters, who told me they had same problem. I saw them receiving envelopes that looked the same as the ones I received containing the cash or non-payroll checks for my additional pay for hours above 35." Boutros Decl. ¶ 9; Zuniga Decl. ¶ 9.[2]

B. Procedural History

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Complaint. Dkt. 1. After defendants filed an Answer, Dkt. 4, the parties stipulated that plaintiffs be granted leave to amend the Complaint to add Zuniga's retaliation claims, Dkt. 12. On March 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 15. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed this motion for collective action certification. Dkt. 18-22. On April 11, 2013, defendants filed an opposition. Dkt. 24-27. On April 17, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply. Dkt. 28. On May 15, 2013, the Court approved an extension of the discovery period to June 15, 2013. Dkt. 30.

II. Applicable Legal Standard

The FLSA provides that an action may be maintained against an employer "by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated." 28 U.S.C. § 216(b). "Although they are not required to do so by FLSA, district courts have discretion, in appropriate cases, to implement [§ 216(b)]... by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs' of the pendency of the action and of their opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiffs." Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 554 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 169 (1989)).[3] "In determining whether to exercise this discretion... the district courts of this Circuit appear to have coalesced around a two-step method, " which the Second Circuit has endorsed as "sensible." Id. at 555; see, e.g., Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 8819 (GEL), 2006 WL 2853971, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2006) (Lynch, J.); Hoffman v. Sbarro, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 249, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Sotomayor, J.).

"The first step involves the court making an initial determination to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs who may be similarly situated' to the named plaintiffs with respect to whether a FLSA violation has occurred." Myers, 624 F.3d at 555. "The court may send this notice after plaintiffs make a modest factual showing' that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.'" Id. (quoting Hoffman, 982 F.Supp. at 261). Although "[t]he modest factual showing' cannot be satisfied simply by unsupported assertions, '... it should remain a low standard of proof because the purpose of this first stage is merely to determine whether similarly situated' plaintiffs do in fact exist." Id. (quoting Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep't of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562, 1567 (11th Cir. 1991)); accord Damassia, 2006 WL 2853871, at *3 ("[A] plaintiff's burden at this preliminary stage is minimal.'" (collecting cases)); Hoffman, 982 F.Supp. at 261 ("The burden on plaintiffs is not a stringent one."). "A court need not evaluate the underlying merits of a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.