Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces
1:22-cv-04575
S.D.N.Y.Jul 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, former hourly employees of Diamond Braces, brought a class and collective action against the company and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
- Plaintiffs claimed that Diamond Braces engaged in unlawful "time-shaving" practices—requiring employees to clock out for meal breaks but still having them work and not compensating for short rest breaks under 20 minutes.
- Claims included failures regarding timely wage payments, wage notices, and wage statements under NYLL. Fernandez also alleged retaliatory termination and nonpayment for unused paid time off.
- Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA, requesting court-facilitated notice to similarly situated employees and supporting discovery/disclosure procedures.
- The Court reviewed affidavits, sample payroll data, and documentary evidence to determine the existence of a common unlawful compensation policy affecting multiple job titles across Diamond Braces' locations.
- The procedural posture: the decision is on pre-discovery conditional certification, not final certification, with a focus on whether similarly situated employees exist for notice purposes under §216(b) FLSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conditional Certification Standard | Plaintiffs and numerous other non-exempt employees were subject to a common unlawful pay policy (time-shaving). | Plaintiffs’ evidence is anecdotal/conclusory and doesn't show a policy violating FLSA for all employees; individual inquiries predominate. | Court grants conditional certification but narrows it to specific job titles and a three-year time frame, finding sufficient evidence of a common policy. |
| Temporal Scope of Notice | Sought six-year notice period aligning with NYLL claims and tolling FLSA statute of limitations. | Three-year period from complaint filing is appropriate; tolling is unfair. | Notice period set at three years before filing; request for equitable tolling denied as premature. |
| Scope of Collective | Requested inclusion of all non-exempt employees at all locations. | Limit to jobs/locations where time-shaving is properly substantiated. | Limited to 15 job titles with substantiated violations, and all of defendant's locations based on records and affidavits. |
| Discovery Requests (re: employee info) | Sought broad disclosure: names, Social Security numbers, contact info, employment details. | Overbroad; social security numbers especially sensitive and unnecessary. | Orders disclosure of employment details, rates, contact info; denies request for Social Security numbers unless necessary later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (establishes two-step process for FLSA collective action certification)
- Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (district courts may authorize notice in FLSA collectives)
- Murray v. Miner, 74 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1996) (elaborates on factors for single integrated enterprise analysis under FLSA)
- Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020) ("similarly situated" standard for FLSA collective actions)
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2016) ("modest factual showing" required for conditional certification)