Chun Ying Lin v. One Coco Nails & Spa Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:20-CV-01509 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | CHUN YING LIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONE COCO NAILS & SPA INC., Defendant. |
CHUN YING LIN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ONE COCO NAILS & SPA INC., Defendant.
Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-01509
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
August 29, 2022
MEMORANDUM
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant One Coco Nails & Spa Inc. (“Coco”) and a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Chun Ying Lin (“Lin”). (Doc. 18; Doc. 21). Plaintiffs Lin and Qin Liang Chen (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1983 (“FLSA”); the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law 43 (“WPCL”); the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, as amended in 2006 (“MWA”); and Pennsylvania state law for wrongful termination. (Doc. 1, at 1-2). In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant Coco claims that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that no material facts remain in dispute as to all of Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. 18, at 1-2). In Plaintiff Lin's motion for partial summary judgment, she claims that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that no material facts remain in dispute regarding her claims for violations of FLSA, MWA, and WPCL. (Doc. 21, at 3). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Coco's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) shall be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff Lin's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 21) shall be DENIED.
I. Background and Procedural History
A. Defendant Coco
This factual background is taken from Coco's statement of material facts and accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 19). Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Plaintiffs have provided their response to Coco's statement of facts and have provided accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 24). Where Plaintiffs dispute facts and supports those disputes in the record, as required by Local Rule 56.1, those disputes are noted. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the Court accepts as true all undisputed material facts supported by the record. Where the record demonstrates a disputed fact, the Court will take notice. In addition, the facts have been taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the non-moving parties, with all reasonable inferences drawn in their favor.
Plaintiff Lin filed a complaint on August 24, 2020, which contains four counts: Count I - Fair Labor Standards Act Violations, Count II - Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law Violations, Count III - Pennsylvania Wage Act Violations, and Count IV -Wrongful Termination. (Doc. 1; Doc. 19, ¶ 1; Doc. 24, ¶ 1). Approximately seven (7) months later, Chen filed a complaint, which contains two counts: Count I - Fair Labor Standards Act Retaliation and Count II - Wrongful Termination. (Doc. 19, ¶ 2; Doc. 24, ¶ 2); see Chen v. One Coco Nails & Spa, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00415 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2021), ECF No. 1.
Lin does not speak English, nor read English. (Doc. 19, ¶ 3; Doc. 20-5, at 6, 14; Doc. 24, ¶ 3). Lin was aware that a complaint had been filed on her behalf, but stated that she had never seen the complaint until the time of her deposition as she does not speak or read
English.[1] (Doc. 19, ¶ 4; Doc. 20-5, at 6). Lin resides in Brooklyn, New York, and not Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania as is indicated in Lin's Complaint.[2] (Doc. 19, ¶ 5; Doc. 20-5, at 7-8).
Lin was employed at Coco in April of 2019 until December of 2019. (Doc. 19, ¶ 6; Doc. 24, ¶ 6; Doc. 20-5, at 11, 19). Paragraph 12 of Lin's complaint alleges Lin's rate of pay was Two Dollars and Eighty-Nine Cents ($2.89) from April of 2019 until December 28, 2019. (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc. 19, ¶ 7; Doc. 24, ¶ 7). Paragraph 14 of Lin's complaint states that “[a]ny and all customer tips were taken by management. The Plaintiff did not receive tips.” (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc. 19, ¶ 8; Doc. 24, ¶ 8). Lin was told that she would be paid One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day and once she received her license, she was paid One Hundred Ten Dollars ($110.00) per day. (Doc. 19, ¶ 9; Doc. 20-5, at 17-18; Doc. 24, ¶ 9). Lin was paid Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00) every two (2) weeks. (Doc. 19, ¶ 10; Doc. 20-5, at 18; Doc. 24, ¶ 10). A text exchange between Lin and Yi Ping Chen (hereinafter “Eva”), the owner of Coco, revealed that Lin was hired to start working for Coco April 10, 2019, for One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day, which would increase to One Hundred Ten Dollars ($110.00) per day once she received her license, together with tips. (Doc. 19, ¶ 11; Doc. 20-5, at 17-18; Doc. 20-8, at 9, 11-12). Eva paid her employees Seven Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($7.25) per hour for the first eight (8) hours and the last two (2) hours that hourly amount was raised to Twenty-One Dollars ($21.00) as overtime and that her employees collected all the tips but if a
customer's tip was below fifteen percent (15%), Eva would make up to fifty percent (50%) of the tip.[3] (Doc. 19, ¶ 12; Doc. 20-8, at 8-9, 12). Coco's employees also received commissions.[4](Doc. 19, ¶ 13; Doc. 20-8, at 11). Tips paid in cash by clients were Lin's and she received tips. (Doc. 19, ¶ 14; Doc. 20-5, at 19; Doc. 24, ¶ 14).
Paragraph 44 of Lin's complaint alleges that Coco's conduct in terminating Lin was in retaliation for reporting serious crimes, such as human trafficking. (Doc. 1, at 11; Doc. 19, ¶ 15; Doc. 24, ¶ 15). Numerous anonymous calls were received through Homeland Security Investigations' human trafficking hotline regarding Coco which were later admitted to have been made by Chen. (Doc. 19, ¶ 16; Doc. 20-2, at 4-10; Doc. 20-7, at 5-6; Doc. 24, ¶ 16). After conducting several investigations based upon these calls, the Pennsylvania State Police terminated the investigation, to no avail.[5] (Doc. 19, ¶ 17; Doc. 20-2, at 10).
Lin was let go from Coco in 2019 because she was not performing in her capacity as a nail technician.[6] (Doc. 19, ¶ 18; Doc. 20-5, at 20-21; Doc. 20-8, at 13). Lin quit her
employment from Coco because she did not do a good job on customers' nails.[7] (Doc. 19, ¶ 19; Doc. 20-8, at 13). Lin has returned to New York where she is employed as a nail technician earning One Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($115.00) per day. (Doc. 19, ¶ 20; Doc. 20-5, at 21; Doc. 24, ¶ 20).
Paragraph 9 of Chen's complaint alleges Chen was employed at Coco from April of 2019 until December 28, 2019. (Doc. 19, ¶ 21; Doc. 24, ¶ 21); Chen v. One Coco Nails & Spa, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00415 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2021), ECF No. 1.Chen was never employed by Coco in 2019.[8] (Doc. 19, ¶ 22; Doc. 20-8, at 15, 17, 19). Defendant submits that the factual record is now closed and reflects that Chen was not was employed by Coco in 2019.[9] (Doc. 19, ¶ 23). Chen's complaint, despite alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, does not reference a single averment that his rights were ever violated under said Act.[10] (Doc. 19, ¶ 24); Chen v. One Coco Nails & Spa, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00415 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2021), ECF No. 1.
While Chen was allegedly employed at Coco in 2019, he was earning Ten Dollars
($10.00) per hour, together with expenses, such as gas and the like. (Doc. 19, ¶ 25; Doc. 20-10, at 23; Doc. 24, ¶ 25). Chen's complaint alleges that because he informed Lin that she was being underpaid, he was terminated. (Doc. 19, ¶ 26; Doc. 24, ¶ 26); Chen v. One Coco Nails & Spa, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00415 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2021), ECF No. 1. Defendants aver that, with the now closed and there is no evidence that Lin was underpaid or that she ever complained to Eva or Coco regarding the same.[11] (Doc. 19, ¶ 27).
Paragraphs 35 and 36 of Chen's complaint allege that Coco's conduct in terminating Chen was in retaliation for reporting serious crimes, such as human trafficking. (Doc. 19, ¶ 28; Doc. 24, ¶ 28); Chen v. One Coco Nails & Spa, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00415 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2021), ECF No. 1. Numerous calls were received through HSI human trafficking hotline regarding Coco by Chen, including one in February of 2020, months after Lin and Chen allegedly left Coco.[12] (Doc. 19, ¶ 29; Doc. 20-2, at 4-10). After conducting several investigations based upon these calls, the Pennsylvania State Police terminated the investigation, to no avail.[13] (Doc. 19, ¶ 30; Doc. 20-2, at 10).
B. Plaintiff Lin
This factual background is taken from Plaintiff Lin's statement of material facts and accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 22). Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Defendant Coco has provided its response to Lin's statement of facts and has provided accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 26). Where Coco disputes facts and supports those disputes in the record, as required by Local Rule 56.1, those disputes are noted. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the Court accepts as true all undisputed material facts supported by the record. Where the record evinces a disputed fact, the Court will take notice. In addition, the facts have been taken in the light most favorable to Coco as the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor.
Coco did not record Lin's hours at any time 2017 through 2019.[14] (Doc. 22, ¶ 1; Doc. 22-1, at 5-6). During Lin's employment with Coco, her employee file consisted of a copy of her driver's license and social security card, and nothing else.[15] (Doc. 22, ¶ 2; Doc. 22-2, at 6). During Lin's employment with Coco, Coco never filed a W-4 for Lin because she had asked to be paid in cash.[16] (Doc. 22, ¶ 3; Doc. 22-2, at 7). During Lin's employment with Coco, there were no documents stating her job title which was “doing nails.”
(Doc. 22, ¶ 4; Doc. 22-2, at 7; Doc. 26, ¶ 4). During Lin's employment with Coco, Coco maintained no written record of how much of her earnings were overtime and how much of her earnings were regular time, but there is a record of how much Lin earned including overtime.[17] (Doc. 22, ¶ 5; Doc. 22-2, at 7). During Lin's employment with Coco, Coco created no paystubs for Lin.[18] (Doc. 22, ¶ 6; Doc. 22-3, at 3). During Lin's...
To continue reading
Request your trial