Zhengfang Liang v. Café Spice SB, Inc.

• Citation: 911 F.Supp.2d 184
• Decision Date: 29 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09–CV–1306 (JFB)(ETB).,09–CV–1306 (JFB)(ETB).
• Parties: ZHENGFANG LIANG, Plaintiff, v. CAFÉ SPICE SB, INC., d/b/a Jasmine & Mr. Vineet Kapoor, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

911 F.Supp.2d 184

ZHENGFANG LIANG, Plaintiff,

v.CAFÉ SPICE SB, INC., d/b/a Jasmine & Mr. Vineet Kapoor, Defendants.

No. 09–CV–1306 (JFB)(ETB).

United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

Nov. 29, 2012.

Zhengfang Liang, pro se.

Darren H. Fairlie, Esq., Rider, Weiner & Frankel, P.C., New Windsor, NY, for defendants.

memorandum And Order

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

Zenghfang Liang (“Liang” or “plaintiff”) brought this action against Café Spice SB, Inc., d/b/a/ Jasmine (“Jasmine”) and the general manager of Jasmine, Vineet Kapoor (“Kapoor”) (collectively, “defendants”), alleging violations of Liang's rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and New York state common law claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Jasmine violated her rights under the EPA, Title VII, the NYSHRL, and Section 1981 by paying her less than it paid both male employees and employees of other races and national origins for similar work. Plaintiff also alleges that Jasmine violated the EPA, Title VII, the NYSHRL, Section 1981, and the FLSA by denying her overtime pay on the basis of her gender, race, and national origin. Plaintiff further alleges that Jasmine violated the EPA, Title VII, the NYSHRL, Section 1981, and the FLSA by creating a hostile work environment, including condoning sexual harassment and firing plaintiff in retaliation for attempting to exercise her rights under those laws. As to Jasmine's alleged violations of Section 1981 and the NYSHRL, plaintiff claims that Kapoor should be held individually liable.

Plaintiff also alleges that Jasmine violated the FLSA by paying her less than the New York State minimum hourly wage. Finally, plaintiff alleges that Jasmine both negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her in retaliation for her complaints.

Defendants now move for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on all of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) grants defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the majority of plaintiff's claims, but denies summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's FLSA unpaid wages claim and plaintiff's retaliatory failure to re-hire claim; and (2) denies plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The Court has taken the facts set forth below from the parties' depositions, affidavits, exhibits, and respective Rule 56.1 Statements of Facts.¹ Upon consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court shall construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir.2005). Unless otherwise noted, where a party's 56.1 statement is cited, that fact is undisputed or the opposing party has not pointed to any evidence in the record to contradict it.²

1. Plaintiff's Employment at Jasmine

On August 22, 2005, Jasmine hired plaintiff as a full-time dishwasher. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13, July 13, 2010, ECF No. 17–4.) Plaintiff claims that she was told she would be paid $400 per week. (Affidavit of Zhengfang Liang (“Zhengfang Aff.”) ¶ 10, Aug. 24, 2011, ECF No. 67–1.) Plaintiff was paid $375 per week until May 14, 2006, the end of the 2006 spring semester. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 13–14.)

Plaintiff's husband, Fuhua Yu, was the dishwasher at Jasmine prior to plaintiff's employment. ( Id. ¶ 11.) He was paid $400 per week in July 2005. ( Id.) Rajesh Bhardwaj, the Chief Operating Officer of Jasmine, claims that Yu was not a dishwasher, but a prep cook responsible for washing and cutting vegetables. (Bhardwaj Affidavit (“Bhardwaj Aff.”) ¶ 38, Sept. 9, 2011, ECF No. 77.) According to Bhardwaj, Yu simply performed extra dishwashing duties in the absence of a full-time dishwasher, prior to plaintiff's employment,and as compensation for his dishwashing work, Jasmine paid Yu an additional $25 over and above his $375 per week prep cook salary. ( Id.) Bhardwaj claims that Yu's dishwashing duties ceased once plaintiff was hired as a full-time dishwasher, and, as a result, Yu stopped receiving the additional $25 per week. ( Id.)

Yu states that he began working at Jasmine in August 2005 as a dishwasher, (Fuhua Yu Affidavit (“Yu Aff.”) ¶ 3, Sept. 8, 2010, ECF No. 22–3), and that he was paid $400 per week until plaintiff was hired, at which point his salary was reduced to $375 per week to work as a “cook helper,” ( id. ¶¶ 5–6; Defs.' Ex. J, Zhengfang Liang Deposition Transcript (“Zhengfang Dep.”) at 28, July 13, 2010, ECF No. 18–4.) At her deposition, plaintiff testified that when she started working as a dishwasher, her “husband was responsible for preparing the food, the raw materials.” (Zhengfang Dep. at 28.) Yu ceased working at Jasmine by November 13, 2005. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff states that, from approximately August 2005 to May 2006, she worked from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. (Zhengfang Aff. ¶ 12.) She was paid $375 per week during that time period, through May 14, 2006, the end of the 2006 spring semester. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13.) Plaintiff's salary rose to $400 per week at the start of the 2006 fall semester. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 15.) Plaintiff claims that she continued to work fifty-eight hours per week from October 2006 through March 2007. (Zhengfang Aff. ¶ 19.)

2. Plaintiff's Concerns Regarding Pay

Plaintiff asserts that, in December 2005, “a Hispanic co-worker” saw plaintiff's paycheck and informed plaintiff that she was receiving the lowest pay of all Jasmine employees. ( Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff further asserts that said co-worker showed plaintiff his payment for that week, which included a check for $400 and an additional cash payment of $60. ( Id.) With the help of Mr. Quan, a Chinese cook at Jasmine, plaintiff asserts that she complained to Williams, a manager at Jasmine, about the fact that she was not receiving the $400 per week she had been promised, and that she never received a cash payment in addition to her weekly paycheck.³ ( Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff claims that Williams inquired with Kapoor, and was told that plaintiff would receive an increase in pay the next semester. ( Id.) Plaintiff did not begin receiving a $400 per week paycheck until October 2006. ( Id. ¶ 18.)

Plaintiff states that, in November 2006, she learned that all Jasmine employees, with the exception of her husband and herself, received a cash payment in addition to their paychecks. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Upon learning this information, plaintiff asserts that she complained to Kapoor directly, and that he promised her $105 in cash in addition to her $400 paycheck each week. ( Id.) According to plaintiff, she received an additional $105 in cash each week in December 2006, but she did not receive the cash payment in January 2007. ( Id. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff states that she approached Williams on three occasions in February 2007 to complain about no longer receiving the cash payment. ( Id. ¶ 23.) According to plaintiff, Williams twice told plaintiff that he would respond to her the next day, but on the third occasion, he “was angry and loudly spoke” to plaintiff. ( Id.) Plaintiff claims that, on this third occasion, Williams informed plaintiff that she would never receive the cash payment. Plaintiff also claims that Kapoor came over and told her that “[n]othing [Jasmine] did is unfair to [plaintiff],” explaining, for example, that there is no pay for employees during break time, but that they never deducted plaintiff's break time from her hours worked. ( Id.)

Plaintiff states that from January 2007 on, she complained to both Kapoor and Williams on a “number of occasions” about “the adverse treatment [she] suffered in wages, in overtime pay, and in accommodation.” ( Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff claims that, as a result, she was “placed under close, constant surveillance,” and that her bosses “unceasingly found faults with [her] and made unwarranted criticism of [her] work in front of other employees.” ( Id. ¶ 26.)

3. Plaintiff's Use of the Unisex Bathroom

Bhardwaj states that, at Jasmine's location in the Wang Center at Stony Brook University, there are at least four separate male and female bathroom facilities. (Bhardwaj Aff. ¶ 40.) Nevertheless, plaintiff states the following about her experience:

[t]here is only one restroom in the Jasmine dining area, which was shared by male with female employees. Like most of man's room [sic], there were always some graffiti with sexual nature on the wall and the partitions in the bathroom, which were particularly offensive to and intended to provoke me as a woman. In addition, many male employees did not lock the door when using the bathroom, and when inquired about if any body [sic] was in the bathroom, they kept silence. As a result, I always had to be confronted with various awkward [sic] when going to the bathroom; what is worse, almost every time I used the bathroom, there was an unceasing knock on the door to hurry me. Being the only female employee working in the kitchen, I was embarrassed very much with such situation. I ever [sic] reported these situations to the managers on a number of occasions; this notwithstanding, the situation was not improved. For this reason, I requested to be allowed to use a neighboring lady room, which is at the same floor as Jasmine and is very close to Jasmine, but was denied. Because of Defendants' full disregard of harassment I experienced as a woman, I had to endure such embarrassment day after day.

(Zhengfang Aff. ¶ 24.) At her deposition, plaintiff testified that Jasmine's chef had told her that workers may “only use the bathroom inside.” (Zhengfang Dep. at 24.) Recounting her experiences with this bathroom, plaintiff...