Solis v. SCA Rest. Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–CV–2212 (JFB)(ETB).,09–CV–2212 (JFB)(ETB). |
| Parties | Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. SCA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Luigi Q Italian Restaurant, a Corporation and Luigi Quarta, Individually and as Owner, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Daniel M. Hennefeld and Elena S. Goldstein, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff.
Raymond Nardo, Mineola, N.Y., for Defendant.
Plaintiff Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (“the Secretary”) brings this action against SCA Restaurant Corporation, d/b/a Luigi Q Italian Restaurant (“SCA Restaurant Corp.”) and Luigi Quarta (“Quarta”) (collectively, “defendants”), asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Specifically, the Secretary alleges that defendants violated the following provisions of the FLSA: (1) Sections 6, 7, and 15(a)(2), by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to the employees of SCA Restaurant Corp.; (2) Sections 11(c) and 15(a)(5), by failing to keep full and accurate records concerning their employees' wages, hours, and conditions of employment; and (3) Section 15(a)(3), by threatening to fire employees who testified against them in this action. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, 211(c), 215(a)(2), 215(a)(3), 215(a)(5). The Secretary seeks an injunction, pursuant to Section 17 of the FLSA, permanently restraining defendants from violating Sections 7, 11(c), 15(a)(2), 15(a)(3) and 15(a)(5) of the FLSA, and an order, pursuant to Section 16(c) of the FLSA, finding defendant liable for unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages. The Secretary also requests compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA.
A bench trial was held on April 9 and April 10, 2012, as well as on October 4, 2012, to determine defendants' liability, if any. Having held a bench trial, the Court now issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and concludes, after carefully considering the evidence introduced at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the controlling law on the issues presented, that the Secretary has met her burden of proof on all of her claims. The Court finds that the Secretary has proven that she is entitled to the following relief: (1) $137,867.12 in unpaid wages for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA; (2) $137,867.12 in liquidated damages for willful violations of the Act; (3) $2,000 in compensatory damages ($1,000 for Mr. Acosta and $1,000 for Mr. Cantos–Chavez) for emotional distress from the violations of the anti-retaliation provisions; and (4) a prospective injunction restraining the defendants from future violations of the Act.
On May 26, 2009, the Secretary filed her complaint alleging violations of the FLSA. Defendants answered on October 15, 2009. The parties undertook discovery for much of 2010.
On April 6, 2012, the Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing defendants from discharging or taking discriminatory action against two employees who the defendants threatened to fire due to their involvement in this lawsuit. ( See Temporary Restraining Order, Apr. 6, 2012, ECF No. 61.) The Court issued a preliminary injunction on April 19, 2012 barring defendants from firing or discriminating against any employees in violation of Section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA until the Court adjudicated this matter. ( See Preliminary Injunction, Apr. 19, 2012, ECF No. 67.)
The Court held a bench trial on April 9 and April 10, 2012.1 Employees Alvin Alexander Torres, Santos Alfaro Pastor, Jose Anibal Acosta, and Juan Carlos Cantos–Chavez testified for the Secretary in her case-in-chief as a representative sample of employees. Department of Labor (“DOL”) investigator Zorayda Vasquez also testified for the Secretary. Richard Gluszak testified for the defense. Both sides submitted exhibits to be considered by the Court and the Secretary made a post-trial legal submission.
After the initial trial, the Secretary amended her complaint on April 13, 2012 to add the retaliation claim, and the defendants filed an answer on April 27, 2012. The parties undertook additional discovery regarding the retaliation claim. The Court held a bench trial on October 4, 2012 so that defendants could present any additional evidence with respect to the retaliation claim. 2 Defendant Luigi Quarta was the only witness for defendants on the remaining retaliation claim.
The Court has fully considered all of the evidence presented by the parties, as well as their written submissions. Below are the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
The following section constitutes the Court's Findings of Fact 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). These Findings of Fact are drawn from witness testimony at trial and the parties' trial exhibits, including the undisputed facts submitted by the parties in the PTO.
Defendant Luigi Quarta is the sole owner of SCA Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Luigi Q Italian Restaurant in Hicksville, NY (“the restaurant”) (PTO, Stip. Facts ¶¶ 5–7.) The annual dollar volume of sales by the corporation for each of the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 exceeded $500,000. ( Id. ¶¶ 1–3.) Luigi Quarta is in active control and management of SCA Restaurant Corp. ( Id. ¶ 8.) Defendants' employees are engaged in commerce, including handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce. ( Id. ¶ 13.)
Quarta has the authority to hire and terminate employees of SCA Restaurant Corp. ( Id.¶¶ 9–10.) Quarta has the authority to determine the rates of compensation of such employees, as well as to direct the work activities of the employees. ( Id.¶¶ 11–12.) For the defendants' restaurant, Quarta does the following: (1) decides the menu ( id. at ¶ 16); (2) decides the prices of the menu offerings ( id. at ¶ 17); (3) selects the suppliers ( id. at ¶ 18); and (4) negotiates prices with the suppliers ( id. at ¶ 19).
During the trial, the Secretary offered the testimony of Alexander Torres, Santos Alfaro Pastor, Jose Anibal Acosta, and Juan Carlos Cantos–Chavez. All four individuals were employed by defendants for a period of time during the relevant time period of May 25, 2006 through the trial. The Secretary also submitted excerpts from the deposition of employee Melvin Isidro Banegas. The Secretary offered this testimony as a representative sample for the twelve employees for which violations of the FLSA were alleged. Based upon the evidence at trial—including the credible testimony of the employees, which was corroborated by the credible testimony of DOL investigator Vasquez—the Court makes the following findings regarding the hours of operation for the restaurant, as well as the employees' hours.
The restaurant was open for lunch and dinner Monday through Friday, and for dinner on Saturday, with the exception of certain holidays and other periodic closings. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Employees worked all six days of the week that the restaurant was open. ( See e.g., Apr. Tr. 35, 81, 125, 184.4) The employees always began work at 10:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, and at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. ( See e.g., id. 35–36, 81–82, 125–126, 184.) On Monday through Friday, the employees had a scheduled break from 3:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.5 ( See, e.g., id. 36, 82–83, 126–28, 184–85.)
The only variation in the employees' schedules related to the time they finished work in the evening. Mr. Torres, a dishwasher, credibly testified that he often left work at 9:00 p.m. on Mondays through Wednesdays, though occasionally he finished work later than 10:00 p.m. ( See id.37.) On Thursdays he usually left work after 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., and on Fridays and Saturdays he ended work between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m., though he occasionally could leave earlier if the restaurant did not have many customers. ( See id. 38–39.) Mr. Acosta, also a dishwasher, credibly testified that he usually ended work at 9:20 or 9:30 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays, although sometimes he stayed until 10:00 p.m. ( See id. 128.) On Fridays and Saturdays, Mr. Acosta left work after 10:20 p.m., and sometimes he stayed until 10:30 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. ( See id. 128–29.) Mr. Banegas, a dishwasher who did not testify at the trial but whose deposition was submitted to the Court, credibly testified that he left work between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, but that he worked until between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. on Saturdays. ( See Pl.'s Ex. 13, Dep. of Melvin Banegas (“Banegas Dep.”), at 15–16, 23–24.)
Mr. Pastor Alfaro, who was employed by defendants as a cook, credibly testified that he frequently left work at exactly 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, but that he finished working between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. ( See Apr. Tr. 84–85.)
Mr. Cantos–Chavez, who prepared the salads, credibly testified that he usually finished work at 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, though he left later than that one or two days per week. ( See id. 186.) He finished work at 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, although he stayed at work later than that approximately once per week. ( See id. 186–87.)
DOL investigator Zorayda Vasquez observed the employees on at least five days and confirmed some of their representations. ( See id. 221.) Ms. Vasquez credibly testified that, during the week, the employees arrived at 10:30 a.m., and that they never left the restaurant for their afternoon break for longer than an hour and a half. ( See id. 222–23.) Ms. Vazquez did not testify regarding the time employees left in the evening, nor did she observe the restaurant on a Saturday. ( See id. 274.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Khurana v. JMP United States, Inc.
- Hernandez v. NJK Contractors, Inc.
-
Callari ex rel. Other Persons Similarly Situated Who Were Employed By Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc.
... ... Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 293 F.R.D. 632, 637 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1–4)) (internal brackets ... of the [FLSA] was willful, in which case a three-year statute of limitation applies.” Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 380, 393 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 255(a)) ... ...
-
Johnson v. Wave Comm GR LLC
...on the issue of willfulness, and the question of willfulness is generally left to the trier of fact. See Solis v. SCA Rest. Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 380, 393 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (collecting cases). Accordingly, it is found that the claims of the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs are limited as identified in de......
-
Chapter § 2-1 29 CFR § 541.0. Introductory Statement
...Act. Here is the question: Does Hoffman apply to the FLSA? Courts generally hold that Hoffman does not. • Solis v. SCA Rest. Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (excellent summary of cases; in addition, holds that liquidated damages may be imposed even if the employee is undocumented......