Seo v. Oh
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18-785 (RDM) |
| Citation | 573 F.Supp.3d 277 |
| Parties | Kang Kyu SEO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles Moon Suk OH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Matthew T. Sutter, Sutter & Terpak, PLLC, Annandale, VA, for Plaintiffs.
Jason J. Huh, Law Office of Jason J. Huh, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, four former employees of a liquor store in Washington D.C., allege that Defendants willfully failed to pay them minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. , and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"), D.C. Code § 32-1301 et seq. See Dkt. 1 at 1–2 (Compl.). Now before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 22, and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to one Plaintiff, Dkt. 23. Because genuine disputes of material fact preclude the granting of summary judgment in favor of either side, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ motion and will DENY Defendants’ cross-motion.
Congress enacted the FLSA to address conditions "detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). To that end, the Act guarantees both a minimum wage, id. § 206, and overtime pay for any "workweek longer than forty hours," id. § 207(a)(2)(C). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, id. § 206(a)(1)(C); see also McNair v. District of Columbia , 359 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2019), and overtime pay must equal at least "one and one-half times" an employee's "regular" hourly rate, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2).
These provisions, however, apply only to certain employers. As relevant here, Section 207 ’s overtime requirements "govern[ ] only employers who are part of an ‘enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.’ " Morales v. Humphrey , 187 F. Supp. 3d 163, 167 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) ). Section 206's minimum-wage provisions, likewise, apply only to those who are "employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).
The FLSA defines an "enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" as one that "has employees engaged in commerce" and "whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000." Id. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). "Commerce," in turn, "means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof." Id. § 203(b). These definitions are "construed ... ‘liberally to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with congressional direction,’ " because "broad coverage is essential to accomplish the goal of outlawing from interstate commerce goods produced under conditions that fall below minimum standards of decency." Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Lab. , 471 U.S. 290, 296, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985) (quoting Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Assocs. , 358 U.S. 207, 211, 79 S.Ct. 260, 3 L.Ed.2d 243 (1959) ).
Even for covered employers, the FLSA exempts "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) ; see also Smith v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. , 590 F.3d 886, 892 (D.C. Cir. 2010). For purposes of this exemption, the Department of Labor defines an "executive" employee as follows:
29 C.F.R. § 541.100. An employer "bears the burden of proving that its employees are exempt," and "exemptions from the FLSA's reach must be narrowly construed against the employer in order to further Congress’ goal of affording broad federal employment protection." Figueroa v. District of Columbia. , 869 F. Supp. 2d 66, 72 (D.D.C. 2012).
D.C. law separately imposes minimum-wage and overtime-pay requirements on employers in the District of Columbia. Two different laws combine to create the scheme relevant to this litigation: the DCWPCL and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA"), D.C. Code § 32-1003 et seq. Like the FLSA, the DCMWA sets a "minimum hourly wage," id. § 32-1003(a)(5), and imposes an overtime-pay requirement for "employment in excess of 40 hours" per week, id. § 32-1003(c). The DCMWA's overtime rate, "1 ½ times the regular rate," id. , tracks the FLSA's equivalent, see 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2)(C). The minimum wage set by D.C. law, however, has long exceeded the $7.25 hourly rate guaranteed by the FLSA. The "minimum hourly wage" required by the DCMWA has steadily increased from, as relevant here, $11.50 starting on July 1, 2016, to $13.25 as of July 1, 2018. D.C. Code § 32-1003(5)(A).
While the DCMWA sets the minimum wages and overtime premiums under D.C. law, the DCWPCL "establishes requirements for the payment of [these] wages," Thompson v. Linda & A., Inc. , 779 F. Supp. 2d 139, 146 (D.D.C. 2011). Under the DCWPCL, D.C. employers are required to "pay all wages earned" by its "employees on regular paydays," D.C. Code. § 32-1302, and, when an employee (who does not have a written contract) "quits or resigns, the employer shall pay the employee's wages due upon the next regular payday or within 7 days from the date of quitting or resigning," id. at § 32-1303(2). "Wages," in turn, are defined to include "[o]vertime premium[s]" and all "[o]ther remuneration promised or owed[ ] ... [p]ursuant to District or federal law," id. § 32-1301(3), thereby incorporating the minimum wage and the overtime provisions provided for by the DCMWA, see id. §§ 32-1003(a) & (c).
D.C. law, like the FLSA, exempts certain employees from these requirements; specifically, the DCMWA "provides for the same executive exemption" as the FLSA. Hernandez v. Stringer , 210 F. Supp. 3d 54, 59 n.2 (D.D.C. 2016) ; see also D.C. Code § 32-1004(a)(1) (). "With respect to employers’ liability," therefore, "the DCMWA and DCWPCL are construed consistently with the FLSA." Hernandez , 210 F. Supp. 3d at 59 n.2 (alterations omitted) (quoting Thompson , 779 F. Supp. 2d at 146 ); accord Orellana v. NBSB Inc. , 332 F. Supp. 3d 252, 257 (D.D.C. 2018).
Plaintiffs Keong Kyu Seo, Danita Evette Chase, Michelle Johnson, and Tamora Agnew are former employees of Charlie's Corner, a liquor store in Washington, D.C. Dkt. 1 (Compl. 1–2); Dkt. 22-1 at 2 (admitting that "[e]ach plaintiff ... was an ‘employee’ " as defined by FLSA). Wade Road, Inc., one of the Defendants, is a D.C. corporation that owns Charlie's Corner, Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶¶ 10–11), and Charles Oh, the other Defendant, is the sole owner of Wade Road, see Dkt. 22-1 at 23 (Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Interrogs. ¶ 20) (identifying Oh as Wade Road's sole "owner"); Dkt. 22-10 at 10 (Oh Dep. 10:17–11:5) (acknowledging that Oh is the only "shareholder" in Wade Road). Plaintiffs filed this FLSA and DCWPCL action against Wade Road and Oh, alleging that both are liable for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages. Dkt. 1 (Compl. 1–2).
Although the Court typically endeavors, at summary judgment, to "recount[ ] ... the facts that the parties do not dispute," Psak v. Bernhardt , No. 14-cv-116, 2020 WL 2849985, at *1 (D.D.C. June 1, 2020), as detailed below nearly every fact in this case is in dispute. The Court will, therefore, summarize the record as to each Plaintiff's employment—including, where relevant, the parties’ disagreements—before turning to the parties’ cross-motions.
The parties agree that Seo worked at Charlie's Corner for approximately 26 weeks, from February 16, 2017 to September 1, 2017, see Dkt. 22-2 at 3 (Answer ¶ 13), although they dispute the nature of his duties. Plaintiffs maintain that "Seo worked as a cashier," Dkt. 1 (Compl. ¶ 14), with "no managerial responsibilities," Dkt. 22-9 at 1 (Seo Decl.), while Defendants argue that he served as the store's "manager," Dkt. 22-1 at 10 , who "was almost, like, the owner," Dkt. 22-10 at 37 (Oh Dep. 73:20); see also Dkt. 22-1 at 15 (Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Interrogs. ¶ 3) ("Wade Road hired Mr. Seo to work as a manager.").
Plaintiffs add that Seo "typically worked six (6) or seven (7) days per week," "starting around 9:00–10:00 a.m. and end[ing] anywhere from 9:00–11:00 p.m." Dkt. 22-9 at 1 (Seo Decl.). That schedule amounted to roughly 72 hours per week, according to Seo, meaning that he is "owed an overtime premium for approximately 896 overtime hours," for a total of "at least $7,728." Id. Defendants maintain that, as the store's manager, Seo was exempt from federal and D.C. minimum-wage and overtime requirements, Dkt. 23 at 9–10, adding that Seo "was initially paid $5,000.00 in March 2017 and later was paid [a] monthly salary of $6,000," good for an annualized rate of $72,000, Dkt. 22-1 at 15 (Defs.’ Resp....
To continue reading
Request your trial