Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.
839 F. Supp. 2d 580
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiffs Alvarez, Ventura, Jeronimo, Portillo Amaya, Esperanza, and Membrano filed a putative collective action under the FLSA and NY Labor Law against IBM Restaurants d/b/a Mangiamo, Bedoian, Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci for unpaid overtime and minimum wage.
- Plaintiffs allege a common policy requiring employees to work overtime without proper compensation across similarly situated workers.
- Plaintiffs’ duties included serving/preparing food, busing tables, and general cleaning at Mangiamo/IBM Restaurants and related individuals.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on November 4, 2010; a default judgment was entered against Bedoian on March 26, 2011; the motion for collective action certification followed on July 21, 2011.
- The court granted conditional certification for a class of all persons employed by the defendants in the last three years and directed a revised Notice of Pendency.
- The court also required production of names and addresses of putative class members and addressed scope and content of the Notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for conditional certification | Plaintiffs argue lenient standard at notice stage suffices. | Defendants contend need for stronger showing of merit and commonality. | Lenient standard applied; sufficient showing of similarly situated workers. |
| Whether plaintiffs are similarly situated | Affidavits show common policy of not paying overtime. | Affidavits insufficient or too generic and fail to identify others. | Plaintiffs met the modest factual showing of a common policy. |
| Adequacy and sufficiency of affidavits identifying others | Affidavits name other employees subjected to the policy. | Plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient specifics. | Affidavits adequate; names of additional employees identified; sufficient for notice purpose. |
| Scope and content of the Notice of Pendency | Notice should run for three years and include all eligible workers. | Notice period should be two years under FLSA for non-willful violations. | Notice period limited to three years; notice content revised to reflect court’s position and entity name change to Mangiamo/Bel Pesto. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (two-step certification framework for FLSA collective actions)
- Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (lenient notice-stage standard for similarly situated requirement)
- Sbarro, Inc. v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (extending lenient standard at early certification stage)
- Doucoure v. Matlyn Food Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (early-stage certification based on common policy evidence)
- Rosario v. Valentine Ave. Discount Store Co., Inc., 828 F. Supp. 2d 508 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (affidavits identifying others can support conditional certification)