407 F.Supp.3d 445
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former valets employed by HR Parking (a/k/a Tri-State/Executive Parking) who worked at the Audi Manhattan dealership under a contract between HR Parking and Open Road Audi of Manhattan.
- Plaintiffs typically worked 7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m., Monday–Friday (≈60 hours/week) and allege they were not paid overtime at the required rate under the FLSA and NYLL.
- Open Road provided the worksite, requested that valets wear Audi-branded clothing, supplied walkie‑talkies, and maintained a time clock on premises; an Open Road employee (Iliana/Giraldo) directed day‑to‑day valet tasks and sometimes sent valets home.
- HR Parking’s owner (Nelson) signed paychecks and handled payroll issues; the contract between HR Parking and Open Road set a flat hourly charge ($14.75/hour) for attendants.
- Open Road moved for summary judgment arguing it was not an employer; the court denied summary judgment, finding disputed facts that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude Open Road was a joint employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Open Road is a joint employer under the FLSA/NYLL | Open Road exercised both formal and functional control (premises, supervision via Giraldo, uniforms, timeclock, knew hours, contract rate) and valets worked predominantly for Open Road | HR Parking hired/paid/terminated valets; Open Road merely contracted for valet services and did not maintain employment records or control hiring | Denied summary judgment — factual disputes (Carter and Zheng factors) could permit a jury to find joint employment |
| Whether opt‑in plaintiffs are similarly situated for FLSA collective proceedings | Opt‑in valets who worked at Audi Manhattan on the same schedule are similarly situated to named plaintiffs | Some opt‑ins never worked at Audi Manhattan and thus cannot pursue claims against Open Road | Denied decertification as to those who actually worked at Audi; plaintiffs who never worked at Audi have no claims against Open Road |
| Defendant’s Rule 23/class certification argument | Plaintiffs did not pursue Rule 23 certification | Defendants argued plaintiffs fail Rule 23(a) | Moot/denied — defendants raised Rule 23 late and plaintiffs made no Rule 23 motion |
| Whether summary judgment should dismiss individual Open Road principals | Plaintiffs sought joint employer liability against Open Road entities and individuals | Defendants did not present specific arguments as to Michael Morais or Rodman Ryan individually | Court did not resolve individual liability; opinion does not find sufficient basis to decide individual defendants’ employer status |
Key Cases Cited
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (economic‑reality test: power to control workers determines employer status)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (four‑factor ‘‘formal control’’ test for employer status)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (six‑factor ‘‘functional control’’ test for joint employment)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (application of joint‑employer principles where service performed on defendant’s premises)
- Layton v. DHL Exp. (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012) (worksite control increases ability to prevent labor violations; relevant to joint‑employer analysis)