Flores v. 201 West 103 Corp.
256 F. Supp. 3d 433
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Flores and Campos (and putative class) sued seven restaurant corporations and three individuals under the FLSA and NYLL, alleging unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, no spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage statements, and improper use of tip credit.
- Plaintiffs worked for Buchetta (201 West 103 Corp.); both alleged frequent transfers of supplies among the other restaurants and interchangeable employees across locations. Both were paid flat cash amounts below statutory minimums and worked without lunch breaks.
- Plaintiffs allege common ownership and centralized operation by Sebastiano Cappitta; Daniele Fiori was alleged to be a manager who directly supervised plaintiffs. Two restaurants shared a website and restaurants were jointly advertised.
- Moving Defendants (six corporate entities and Daniele and Francesca Fiori) moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; they also sought to strike a later declaration (Galvez). Plaintiffs conceded dismissal as to 1600 Amsterdam Corp. (Coccola) and Francesca Fiori.
- The Court evaluated employer status under the FLSA using the economic-reality framework (formal control, functional control, and single-integrated-enterprise factors) and the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple corporate defendants form a single integrated enterprise (joint employer) | Restaurants share common ownership, branding, menu/theme, joint advertising, interchangeable employees, and transfer of supplies — sufficient to allege single integrated enterprise | Insufficient specific facts linking each corporate defendant to plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not allege direct employment by those entities | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a single integrated enterprise at the pleading stage; motion to dismiss on this ground denied for those entities |
| Whether Daniele Fiori is an employer under the FLSA | Fiori exercised power to hire/fire, set pay and schedules, directly supervised plaintiffs as Buchetta manager | Defendants disputed employer status | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded that Daniele Fiori had formal control and thus was an employer; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether claims against 1600 Amsterdam Corp. (Coccola) and Francesca Fiori should be dismissed | Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss these defendants | Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of factual allegations tying them to plaintiffs | Court: Claims against 1600 Amsterdam Corp. and Francesca Fiori dismissed (granted) |
| Whether the Galvez declaration (and other extrinsic declarations) may be considered / should be struck | Plaintiffs relied on declarations to oppose dismissal | Defendants moved to strike the late-filed Galvez declaration as outside the pleadings | Court: Did not rely on those declarations and denied motion to strike as moot (declined to consider extrinsic materials) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (FLSA’s definition of employ analyzed by economic reality)
- Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (economic-reality test and employer analysis under FLSA)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (functional control factors for joint employer analysis)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (factors for employer status under economic-reality test)