Ayala v. Tito Contractors, Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25804
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Tito Contractors, owned and run by Maximo Pierola, employed the named plaintiffs as construction laborers from 2010–2013 and admitted to systematic practices that avoided paying required overtime.
- For non-supervisors Tito paid only a portion of overtime hours (often at an overtime rate but resulting in near-regular wages); for supervisors it paid regular wages regardless of overtime; on at least one job it paid workers for fewer than all hours worked.
- Plaintiffs filed a collective/class action alleging violations of the FLSA and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL); the FLSA collective was conditionally certified; summary judgment motions followed.
- Defendants did not dispute liability under the FLSA but contested good-faith/liquidated damages, willfulness (statute of limitations), equitable tolling of limitations, and discovery-related challenges to the DCWPCL claim.
- The court found undisputed evidence that Tito knew the FLSA requirements, intentionally implemented the pay schemes, falsified payroll records, and threatened retaliation—warranting liability, liquidated damages, and a three-year statute of limitations for FLSA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLSA liability and unpaid overtime | Tito intentionally withheld/underreported overtime pay; liable under 29 U.S.C. §207 | Defendants do not oppose summary judgment on FLSA liability (dispute limited to good faith) | Liability found as a matter of law for unpaid overtime |
| Liquidated damages and willfulness / statute of limitations | Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages and 3-year limitations, arguing violations were willful and not in good faith | Defendants assert they acted in good faith and Plaintiffs agreed to pay practices | Court awards liquidated damages (no good-faith defense shown) and applies 3-year limitations for willful violations |
| DCWPCL claim (Mt. Pleasant Library prevailing-wage / unpaid hours) | Plaintiffs allege Tito underreported/failed to pay hours (thus unpaid wages) for two workers on a Davis-Bacon project | Defendants say the claim is an afterthought, discovery responses were inadequate, and Davis-Bacon lacks a private right of action | Court grants summary judgment on DCWPCL for the two employees because the claim targets unpaid wages due to underreported hours, not a Davis-Bacon end-run |
| Equitable tolling of FLSA limitations (posting, misleading conduct, diligence) | Plaintiffs seek tolling based on failure to post FLSA notice, falsified paystubs, misleading conduct, and plaintiffs’ limited knowledge/diligence | Defendants contend notices were posted, failure to post alone cannot toll, no active misrepresentations, and plaintiffs lacked diligence | Court denies summary judgment on tolling: factual disputes exist (posting, deception, diligence), so tolling questions must be decided at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard and evaluation of genuine disputes)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must produce evidence showing genuine issue of material fact)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (definition of willful violation for FLSA statute-of-limitations extension)
- Norman v. United States, 467 F.3d 773 (equitable tolling when complainant is induced by adversary misconduct)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable-tolling standards: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)