Chaohui Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 376

Background

Four plaintiffs (two drivers: Jian Liu, Jian Li; two loaders: Chaohui Tang, Qingze Liu) sued Wing Keung Enterprises and its CEO for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and Wage Theft Prevention Act notice violations arising between 2009–2013.
Defendants operate a refrigerated food distribution business with heavy trucks (>10,000 lbs.) delivering to NY, NJ, CT and are registered with DOT; they asserted the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to FLSA/NYLL overtime.
Plaintiffs alleged defendants paid flat monthly wages, falsified time records, and denied overtime and minimum wages; defendants produced route assignments, AR invoices, employee time reports, and paystubs asserting compliance.
The magistrate judge was asked (by consent) to decide MCA-exemption issues (when exemption applies) and held an evidentiary hearing on record authenticity; she found no proof records were falsified and prepared an R&R on MCA scope.
District court adopted the R&R: MCA exemption applies only during periods when each plaintiff actually worked on interstate routes; summary judgment granted as to overtime for those exempt periods, denied for other periods; minimum-wage and record-authenticity disputes remain for trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of MCA exemption (temporal unit)	Plaintiffs: exemption should not bar their claims; some plaintiffs treated as non-exempt; records unreliable	Defendants: MCA applies when employees performed safety-affecting duties on interstate runs; trucks qualify; exemption applies for periods of interstate work	MCA exemption applies only for weeks/time periods when plaintiffs actually worked on interstate routes (week-by-week approach adopted)
Whether plaintiffs were "safety-affecting" (drivers/loaders)	Plaintiffs: loaders did not exercise judgment affecting safe interstate operation; drivers not necessarily likely to perform interstate travel	Defendants: drivers and loaders perform safety-affecting duties (driving, loading/unloading) and thus fall within MCA when on interstate trips	Both drivers and loaders held to perform safety-affecting activities; exemption applies during interstate-route periods
Authenticity of employer records / falsification claim	Plaintiffs: payroll/time records were fabricated, warranting liquidated damages and collective certification	Defendants: records are genuine and reflect hours/pay; manual adjustments were made when needed	Magistrate found plaintiffs failed to prove falsification; collective-action certification denied; authenticity challenge dismissed for summary judgment purposes
Minimum-wage and overtime pay compliance	Plaintiffs: even if MCA exempts overtime, minimum-wage obligations still apply and factual dispute exists about actual pay	Defendants: paystubs and reports show compliance with minimum wage and overtime where due	MCA does not excuse minimum-wage claims; factual disputes over pay and missing/incomplete records preclude summary judgment on minimum-wage and non-exempt overtime periods

Key Cases Cited

Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp., LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment genuine-dispute standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and materiality)
Chertkova v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (insufficient evidence precludes trial)
Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.) (MCA exemption burden on employer; interstate continuity)
Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (1947) (scope/purpose of MCA exemption)
Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 (1947) (defining safety-affecting activities and loader/driver categories)
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (FLSA willfulness standard)
Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.) (willfulness requires more than negligence)
Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir.) (relation-back and giving claims adjudication on merits)