Garcia v. Spectrum of Creations Inc.
102 F. Supp. 3d 541
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Garcia and Flores sue Food Trends and its owner under the FLSA and NYLL for wage-and-hour violations.
- Garcia worked 2008–2012 as a food preparer/delivery person; Flores worked 2006–2014 as a delivery dispatcher/delivery person and food preparer.
- Both allege that cooks/food preparers were required to perform delivery duties and vice versa, with no overtime or spread-of-hours pay and tip-related issues.
- Plaintiffs identify 15–16 other similarly situated employees and contend a common policy violated wage laws; defendants contest this.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional (notice) certification under §216(b), court-facilitated notice, and production of employee data for notice purposes; the court partially grants the motion.
- Defendant owner Moskowicz provides a declaration denying the claimed universal policy and asserts some named plaintiffs’ roles differ from plaintiffs’ descriptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to conditionally certify a collective action | Garcia/Flores assert similarly situated employees exist. | Defendants contend lack of substantial facts showing a common policy. | Granted in part; limited to food preparers and delivery workers. |
| Scope of 'similarly situated' group | Class includes all non-exempt Food Trends workers performing related duties. | Only some job functions align; not all non-exempt employees. | Limited to food preparation and delivery functions, not all non-exempts. |
| Notice provisions and information to be provided | Court-facilitated notice to Covered Employees with opt-in; broad contact data and posting requested. | Limit notice to 3-year period; restrict data; posting not always appropriate. | Notice period limited to 3 years; production of some data deferred; posting deferred pending best-method discussion. |
| Procedural approach to observe evidence at this stage | Affidavits and personal observations suffice for preliminary certification. | Need more concrete evidence of a common policy. | Affidavits deemed sufficient to justify conditional approval at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (district courts may authorize notice to potential plaintiffs)
- Braunstein v. E. Photographic Labs., Inc., 600 F.2d 335 (2d Cir. 1978) (notice in FLSA actions permitted as a procedural tool)
- Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (modest factual showing can justify conditional certification)
- Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 229 F.R.D. 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (FLSA collective action approval not governed by Rule 23)
- Romero v. La Revise Assocs., L.L.C., 968 F. Supp. 2d 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (affidavits based on observations can support certification)