United States District Court, E.D. New York
STEVEN CYPRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
Employment Law Firm, P.C. Attorneys for the Plaintiff By:
Steven J. Moser, Esq., Of Counsel.
Jackson Lewis, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant By: Jeffrey
W. Brecher, Esq., Of Counsel.
DECISION & ORDER
D. SPATT United States District Judge.
15, 2016, the Plaintiff Steven Cypress (the
“Plaintiff”) commenced this putative
wage-and-hour class action against his employer, Cintas
Corporation No. 2 (“Cintas”), alleging that
Cintas violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”),
N.Y. Lab. L. § 190 et seq., by failing to pay
him the statutorily required overtime wages, and failing to
provide him with wage statements setting forth his regular
and overtime rates of pay.
August 22, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et
seq., Cintas filed a motion seeking to compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate his wage-and- hour claims in
accordance with the terms of an employment agreement, and to
stay this action in the interim.
reasons that follow, the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration is granted in its entirety.
first employed the Plaintiff as a Service and Sales
Representative in February 2012.
to an employment agreement dated February 6, 2012 (the
“2012 Agreement”), prior to being hired, the
Plaintiff apparently agreed to certain terms and conditions
of employment. Among these, he agreed to an arbitration
clause requiring the parties to resolve through the process
of binding arbitration “any dispute or
difference” between them “concerning whether
either party at any time violated any duty, right, law,
regulation, public policy, or provision of this
Agreement.” By its terms, “[t]he rights and
claims of [the Plaintiff] covered by [the arbitration clause]
. . . specifically include[d] . . . all of the [the
Plaintiff]'s rights or claims arising out of or in any
way related to [the Plaintiff]'s employment with
[Cintas], such as rights or claims arising under . . . the
Fair Labor Standards Act . . . [and] other state or local
laws regarding employment . . .” (the
one year later, on February 7, 2013, the parties entered into
a second employment agreement (the “2013
Agreement”). According to its express terms, in
exchange for again agreeing to arbitrate any
employment-related disputes, Cintas agreed to increase the
Plaintiff's rate of pay.
regard, an earnings statement for the week ending February 1,
2013, namely, the pay period immediately preceding the 2013
Agreement, indicates that the Plaintiff was paid a regular
wage of $11.75 per hour. However, consistent with the 2013
Agreement, the Plaintiff's earnings statement for the
week ending March 15, 2013 indicates that his regular rate of
pay was increased to $11.98 per hour, and he was compensated
retroactively in the amount of $0.23 for each of the 144
hours he worked after signing the 2013 Agreement.
April 23, 2014, the parties entered into a third employment
agreement (the “2014 Agreement”). In exchange for
again agreeing to arbitrate any employment-related disputes,
Cintas agreed to increase the Plaintiff's rate of pay.
Cintas concedes that it failed to increase the
Plaintiff's regular wages as ...