Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc.

Decision Date18 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. 95 CIV. 0694(SS).,95 CIV. 0694(SS).
Citation997 F.Supp. 504
PartiesKeith ARCHIE; Rudy Askew; Raymond Del Valle; Percival Dennis; Cynthia Dilbert; Joyce Dorsey; William Farrior; Carlton Ford; Fitzroy Frederick; Miles Harp; Felicia Hart; Warren Hartshorn; Jay Hemphill; Derrick Johnson; William Johnson; William J. Johnson; Mona Lisa Larry; Gregory Lloyd; Frederick Mack; Ronald Manning; Mark McMillan; Regina Miller; Ernest Montgomery; James Moore; Dennis Novak; Nina Paul; Nathan Rhames; Jose Rodriguez; William Scott; David Solomon; Lee Springer; Zachary Suddith; Arnold Thornton; Stanley Turner; Tony Turner; Thelma Wall; James Whitman; Earl Williams; Jerome Williams; and Oscar Willis; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GRAND CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP, INC.; Grand Central Partnership Social Services Corporation; and 34th Street Partnership, Inc., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York, NY (Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Martha A. Lees, Yves P. Denizé, Jennifer L. Kroman, Of counsel), for Plaintiffs.

Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, LLP, New York, NY (Molly S. Boast, Kenneth Moltner, Helen Marie Sweeney, Tracey Tiska, Of counsel), for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SOTOMAYOR, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, formerly homeless and jobless individuals, allege that the defendants — the Grand Central Partnership, Inc. ("GCP"), the Grand Central Partnership Social Services Corporation ("SSC"), and the 34th Street Partnership, Inc. ("34th SP") — unlawfully paid them sub-minimum wages to perform clerical, administrative, maintenance, food service, and outreach work in the defendants' Pathways to Employment ("PTE") Program. Plaintiffs argue that the payment of subminimum wages allowed the defendants unfairly to underbid competitors who compensated their employees at lawful rates. Defendants maintain that the plaintiffs were not employees of the PTE Program, but were instead trainees receiving essential basic job skills development and counseling, and thus were not entitled to minimum wage payment.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, and the New York State Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Labor Law § 650. They seek judgment that the plaintiffs were employees of the defendants and damages in the amount of back wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

For the reasons to be discussed, the Court finds that the defendants' program did provide the plaintiffs with some meaningful benefits. Nonetheless, despite the defendants' intent, they did not structure a training program as that concept is understood in case law and regulatory interpretations but instead structured a program that required the plaintiffs to do work that had a direct economic benefit for the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs were employees, not trainees and should have been paid minimum wages for their work.

The work the plaintiffs performed competed with other business enterprises paying minimum wages. Despite the attractive nature of the defendants' program in serving the needs of the homeless, the question of whether such a program should be exempted from the minimum wage laws is a policy decision either Congress or the Executive Branch should make. The defendants had the right to apply for an exemption from the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA and the New York Minimum Wage Act, and should have done so. The Court, however, cannot grant an exemption where one does not exist in law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I adopt as findings the following facts agreed upon by the parties in their Joint Pre-Trial Order:

AGREED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiffs in this action are all homeless or formerly homeless persons. When this case was filed on February 1, 1995, forty individuals had signed consent forms to become Plaintiffs and are named in the caption of this case: Keith Archie; Rudy Askew; Raymond Del Valle; Percival Dennis; Cynthia Dilbert; Joyce Dorsey; William Farrior; Carlton Ford; Fitzroy Frederick; Miles Harp; Felicia Hart; Warren Hartshorn; Jay Hemphill; Derrick Johnson; William Johnson; William J. Johnson; Mona Lisa Larry; Gregory Lloyd; Frederick Mack; Ronald Manning; Mark McMillan; Regina Miller; Ernest Montgomery; James Moore; Dennis Novak; Nina Paul; Nathan Rhames; Jose Rodriguez; William Scott; David Solomon; Lee Springer; Zachary Suddith; Arnold Thornton; Stanley Turner; Tony Turner; Thelma Wall; James Whitman; Earl Williams; Jerome Williams; and Oscar Willis.

2. Defendants have taken the depositions of nine Plaintiffs. They have received responses to interrogatories from an additional 33 Plaintiffs. They have received affidavits from seven Plaintiffs, all of whom submitted interrogatory responses and four of whom were deposed.

3. Defendant Grand Central Partnership ("GCP") is a New York not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law with its principal place of business at 6 East 43rd Street.

4. Defendant Grand Central Partnership Social Services Corporation ("SSC") is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation law, and has its principal place of business at 152 East 44th Street, New York, New York.

5. Defendant 34th Street Partnership ("34th Street") is a business improvement district ("BID") organized and existing under the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation law.

6. The SSC runs a multi-service drop-in center for the homeless (the "drop-in center," the "Multi-Service Center," the "Center"), for which it receives funding from New York City pursuant to contract (the "City Contract"), among other funding sources. The SSC was formed in 1989 to take over from the Moravian Church the running of the Center. At the Center, the SSC operates the Pathway to Employment ("PTE") program.

7. Plaintiffs became homeless for a range of reasons. All of the Plaintiffs eventually learned of and visited the Center for homeless persons operated by the SSC.

8. The SSC's current City Contract mandates that the SSC "operate the Center to [serve] the target population." An average of 200 clients are to be served per day, and the Center is to "operate 24 hours a day, 7 days per week." Pursuant to the contract, the SSC provides counseling, referrals, clothing, showers, and mail access, to those clients wishing such services. The SSC contracts that its delivery of these services will meet the social service standards established by the City. The contract also requires the SSC to operate an outreach program to serve homeless people outside the Center and, if possible, help bring them in for additional services. The SSC is required to "operate the Center with the purpose of resocializing clients, providing social services and rehabilitation services for clients with the goal of allowing clients to become appropriate for placement into alternative living arrangements."

9. The City Contract requires the SSC to "implement a Work Experience Program which will assist clients in developing alternate living skills for independent living." The Contract states that the "program shall aid clients in developing vocational skills for the purpose of future employment."

10. The City Contract provides funds for services to about 200 clients per day.

11. Homeless persons who visited the Center were known as "contacts" or "clients."

12. The Center allows any adult homeless person to become a client.

13. Upon arriving at the Center, clients usually were interviewed in a process known as "intake." The intake interviewer completed an Intake Interview form that asked where the client spent the last five nights, how he or she heard about the center, and what services the client requested.

14. Clients typically would also undergo another interview called an Assessment Interview. The form used with this interview asked for the client's family history, education, employment history, resources, legal history, medical history, mental health history, substance abuse history and housing history. The form also called for the interviewer to elicit the client's goals and asked the interviewer to provide an overall assessment and treatment plan for the client.

15. The SSC maintained a Self-Help Center at the Center, which contained various materials to assist clients in seeking a job.

16. The SSC identified individuals who had severe or chronic medical or mental health problems, or who otherwise needed to enter therapeutic programs or undergo intensive case management. Those individuals were referred to outside programs for certain services.

17. The SSC provided those clients who requested it counseling regarding substance abuse rehabilitation, housing, employment, entitlements, mental health, educational /vocational training, and family issues.

18. Some plaintiffs had mental health, physical health, or substance abuse problems, and some had limited work histories. Some had experienced periods of unemployment before coming to SSC.

19. The program that became known as PTE was started in 1989, and its structure has changed in some respects over time, but its basic elements and methods have remained consistent.

20. The PTE program was operated through the SSC and out of the SSC's offices.

21. Some SSC clients opted to join the PTE program. PTE participants were required to make arrangements for stable housing before entering PTE.

22. Once a participant entered the PTE program, he or she was assigned to one of five areas, all of which, directly or indirectly, contributed to the overall operation and goals of the Center. The five areas were maintenance, food services, administration, outreach and recycling (the recycling area was added in January 1993).

23. The PTE program required that an individual participate in the program for 40 hours per week. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
125 cases
  • Kessler v. Grand Cent. Dist. Management Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 13, 1998
    ...to pay sub-minimum wages to many of its other employees has resulted in a legal verdict against the BID. See Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (finding GCDMA had violated Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Minimum Wage Act by paying workers sub......
  • Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 2, 2006
    ...of each entity are operationally interdependent and may be treated as a single enterprise under the Act." Archie v. Grand Cent. P'Ship, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 504, 525 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (citing Odd 912 F.2d at 692-93). Finally, "[c]ommon ownership standing alone does not bring unrelated activities ......
  • Moon v. Kwon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 9, 2002
    ...herein any finding of fact previously set forth that might more properly be deemed a conclusion of law. Archie v. Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 504, 524 (S.D.N.Y.1998). 16. While the Department of Labor's interpretive regulations lack the binding force of law, they are entitled to "......
  • Benton v. Laborers' Joint Training Fund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 10, 2015
    ...that it "in any way competes with other commercial ventures, or charges its clients for services"); Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 504, 527–28 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (holding that non-profit organizations that operated "pathways to employment" program for the homeless qualifie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2016 Part III. Employee Compensation, Safety and Benefits
    • July 27, 2016
    ...“commerce” expansively. The practical result is a finding of FLSA coverage. See, e.g., Archie v. Grant Cent. Partnership, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 504, 529-31 (S.D.N.Y. 3. Enterprise The FLSA definition of an “enterprise” has the effect of lumping together what might otherwise be considered separ......
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • August 16, 2014
    ...“commerce” expansively. The practical result is a finding of FLSA coverage. See, e.g. , Archie v. Grant Cent. Partnership, Inc. , 997 F. Supp. 504, 529-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). §9:1 Texas employmenT law 9-346 3. Enterprise The FLSA definition of an “enterprise” has the effect of lumping together......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Dist.] 1997, pet. granted) aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999), §18:7.I.3 Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc. , 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), §9:1.B.2 Architectural Glass and Metal Co., Inc. v. NLRB , 107 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 1997), §16:3.G Arculeo v. On-Site Sal......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Dist.] 1997, pet. granted) aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999), §18:7.I.3 Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc. , 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), §9:1.B.2 Architectural Glass and Metal Co., Inc. v. NLRB , 107 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 1997), §16:3.G Arculeo v. On-Site Sal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT