Colella v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 05 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 07 Civ. 6312(LAP).,07 Civ. 6312(LAP). |
| Parties | Brian COLELLA, Joseph Berardi, Albert P. Somma Jr., Anthony Giordano, Michael Kazmierzak, Dominick Bueti, William K. Flynn, Nick Demonte, John Fabbricante, Patrick J. Brady, John Scupelliti, Jerry Parisi, Gerard Geisler, and Robert Ryan, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and the New York City Fire Department, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David George Gabor, Hope Senzer Gabor, Gabor & Gabor, Garden City, NY, Lawrence Solotoff, Solotoff & Solotoff, for Plaintiffs.
Patrick J. Brady, pro se.
Benjamin Welikson, Carolyn Walker–Diallo, Larry Rafael Martinez, Jessica Waters, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs brought this collective action seeking back wages for overtime pay they claim Defendants the City of New York (the “City”) and the New York City Fire Department (the “FDNY”) withheld from them and other similarly situated individuals in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (the “FLSA”). Defendants have moved for summary judgment dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion [Dkt. No. 61] is GRANTED.1
I. BACKGROUNDA. Procedural History
Because the caption for this case no longer accurately reflects the Plaintiffs who remain involved in this litigation, the Court begins with the history of the case. On May 26, 2006, Plaintiff Brian Colella commenced this action by filing a pro se summons and complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, alleging that he and other employees of the FDNY Building Maintenance Division (“BMD”) were the victims of unfair labor practices in violation of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Colella thereafter obtained counsel, who filed a verified amended complaint on June 26, 2007, naming sixteen additional plaintiffs and adding claims under the FLSA; all named plaintiffs filed their written consent to join the FLSA lawsuit, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). On July 10, 2007, Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On January 8, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”), which contains causes of action under the FLSA only; all claims under the New York Labor Law have been abandoned. On January 12, 2009, this Court certified the case as a “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The notice distributed to potential additional members of the collective action defined the class as “any and all current and former employers of The New York City Fire Department's Building Maintenance Division, who worked as Carpenters, Electricians, Cement Masons, Roofers and Plumbers on or after May 26, 2004.” On June 28, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation adding Frederick J. Cermak and Joseph McCarthy as additional named Plaintiffs based on their having timely opted-in. On December 23, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of Plaintiffs John Fabbricante and Michael Kazmierczak for failure to prosecute.
On February 17, 2011, the Court entered the parties' stipulated dismissal with prejudice of the claims of Plaintiffs Gerard Geisler, Nick Demonte, Dominick Bueti, and Patrick J. Brady. The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims of pro se Plaintiff Anthony Giordano on June 14, 2011, for failure to proffer evidence from which a fact finder could find that Giordano was entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Accordingly, at the time Defendants filed the instant motion, the following nine named Plaintiffs remained in the case: Joseph Berardi (“Berardi”), Albert P. Somma Jr. (“Somma”), Brian Colella (“Colella”), Jerry Parisi (“Parisi”), Joseph McCarthy (“McCarthy”), Robert Ryan (“Ryan”), Frederick Cermak (“Cermak”), William K. Flynn (“Flynn”), and John Scupelliti (“Scupelliti”). Defendants now move for summary judgment on the claims of all remaining Plaintiffs.
B. Relevant Facts
The following facts are not in dispute unless otherwise noted, and all facts are construed and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of Plaintiffs, the non-moving party.2
Plaintiffs are nine current or former BMD employees who worked at one point during the relevant period as a carpenter, electrician, or cement mason. Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to pay overtime for the following acts alleged to be compensable under the FLSA: (1) time spent transporting tools, materials, and equipment in their assigned FDNY vehicles from their homes to their worksites and back; (2) time spent en route to either their worksites or homes ensuring that the tools, materials, and equipment are secure in their vehicles; (3) time spent inspecting their work vehicles each morning and after they return home from work; and (4) time spent receiving or returning calls or pages from their supervisors regarding work assignments for that day or the next day. Because Defendants employed Plaintiffs for a seven hour per day, Monday through Friday workweek, and because the seven hour workday ran from when Plaintiffs checked in at their work locations until they left for home, Plaintiffs claim the time spent performing the aforementioned tasks resulted in a greater than forty hour workweek, for which they were owed overtime at either the rate of time-and-a-half or double time.3 ( See Compl. ¶¶ 29–30.)
Plaintiffs also bring a claim for Defendants' “intentional[ ] fail[ure] to maintain adequate and accurate written records for the hours and wages earned by [P]laintiffs in order to facilitate their exploitation of [P]laintiffs' labor,” allegedly in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2. ( Id. ¶¶ 52–53.) Plaintiffs primarily seek relief in the form of their alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA, lost wages, pension, and retirement benefits, liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and reasonable attorney's fees. (Compl. ¶¶ 56–57, 61–62.)
Since 2002, Joseph Mastropietro (“Mastropietro”) has acted as Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of Facilities, within which BMD is one department. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 3.) Daniel Wallen (“Wallen”) has acted as Supervisor of Mechanics since at least 2002 and reports to Mastropietro. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Wallen supervises almost all BMD trades personnel, including Plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶ 5.) Dominick Moretti (“Moretti”) served as Supervisor of Electricians from July 29, 2001, until March 31, 2009, and reported directly to Wallen. ( Id. ¶¶ 6–7.)
Electricians and carpenters are required to work Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with one half hour of unpaid lunch per day, amounting to a thirty-five-hour regular paid workweek. (Compl. ¶ 41; Def. 56.1 ¶ 12.) 4 Cement masons similarly work thirty-five-hour regular paid workweeks, though their days run from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 15.) Electricians earn overtime at the rate of one-and-a-half times their regular hourly rate for all work performed in excess of the regularly scheduled seven hour workday. ( Id. ¶ 13.) Carpenters earn the same overtime rate as electricians Monday through Saturday but earn two times their regular pay rate on Sundays and Holidays. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Cement masons earn overtime at the rate of two times their regular hourly rate for all work performed in excess of the regularly scheduled seven hour workday. ( Id. ¶ 16.)
All BMD personnel, including Plaintiffs, perform their trades at various FDNY worksites, or “work locations,” within the City's five boroughs and travel to their work locations using an assigned FDNY vehicle. ( Id. ¶¶ 17–18.) During all relevant times, Plaintiffs transported tools, equipment, and supplies necessary for the performance of their jobs in their FDNY vehicles; whenever they ran low on materials they would conduct an inventory and report to 35th Street in Queens to restock. ( Id. ¶¶ 19–20.) Although the BMD employs motor vehicle operators to transport heavy duty equipment to the work locations, Plaintiffs allege occasionally they would transport certain equipment in their FDNY vehicles that they viewed as being “heavy duty.” ( Id. ¶ 21; Waters Decl. Ex. C, at 174–81.)
In April 2003, the FDNY implemented a new policy that changed the transportation procedures applicable to all BMD trade personnel. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 22.) Mastropietro circulated to each tradesman a memorandum (the “April 2003 Memo”) and a “Driver Election Form” that contained two options. “Option 1” provided that the employee would travel each day to his work location in an assigned FDNY vehicle and that such travel was non-compensable:
I choose to use the Department vehicle from home and commute to my assigned work locations(s) on my own time using the Department vehicle. Assignment(s) will be made the previous day as per current procedures. Start time is 0730 and I am required to report to my first assigned work location at 0730. I will sign out at the last work location at 1500.
(Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 24–25.) Defendants paid those employees who elected Option 1 for gas and tolls, at least within the City's five boroughs. ( E.g., id. ¶ 55; Waters Decl. Ex. S., at 54–55.) “Option 2” allowed trades personnel to commute to their work locations using their preferred mode of transportation:
I choose to commute (i.e. drive personal vehicle, use mass transit, etc.) on my own time to my assigned work location(s). Assignment(s) will be made the previous day as per current procedures. Start time is 0730 and I am required to report to my first assigned work location at 0730. I will sign out at the last assigned work location at 1500.
(Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 29–30.) Any employee who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Directsat USA, LLC
...employee and employer to receive assignments” was incident to the use of an employer's vehicle for commuting))); Colella v. City of New York, 986 F.Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (time spent by employees of city's building maintenance division speaking with their supervisor about scheduling mat......
-
Callari ex rel. Other Persons Similarly Situated Who Were Employed By Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc.
...omitted). “Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof on the issue of willfulness.” Colella v. City of New York, No. 07 Civ. 6312(LAP), 986 F.Supp.2d 320, 336, 2013 WL 6331725, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2013) (citing Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir.2009)). The question of w......
-
Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corp.
... ... (KPF), 2019 WL 3219454, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019); ... Price v. City of New York , No. 15 Civ. 5871 (KPF), ... 2018 WL 3117507, at *5 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, ... [compensable under the FLSA].”); Colella v. City of ... New York , 986 F.Supp.2d 320, 342-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ... (finding that ... RICO's private right of action for treble damages to ... “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by ... reason of a violation” of the RICO ... ...
-
Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp.
...travel between home and work), even when an employee is using an employer's vehicle for the commute. See Colella v. City of New York , 986 F.Supp.2d 320, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). "An employee who travels from home before his regular workday and returns to his home at the end of the workday is e......