Gaytan v. G&G Landscaping Construction, Inc.
145 F. Supp. 3d 320
D.N.J.2015Background
- Gaytan worked for G&G Landscaping from ~2004–2013 as laborer, foreman, and (from Oct. 2009) foreman plus salesman under written "Sales Man Guidelines" promising $18/hour for selling/designing/estimating.
- Gaytan routinely arrived at 6:45 a.m., 15 minutes before a 7:00 a.m. start, performing "shop time" tasks (loading trucks, checking vehicles, greasing machines).
- G&G paid a flat monthly $100 "bonus/attendance" during the relevant period; Gaytan contends this did not properly compensate for shop time and sometimes was not paid.
- Gaytan sued under the FLSA and New Jersey law (NJWPL, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) seeking unpaid overtime and unpaid $18/hour for Sales Man work.
- G&G moved for summary judgment: (1) dismiss FLSA claims for unpaid shop time (arguing Gaytan was paid); and (2) dismiss state-law claims related to unpaid commissions under NJWPL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15-minute daily "shop time" is compensable under the FLSA | Shop time (loading trucks, prepping equipment) is integral and indispensable and therefore compensable | Even if compensable, G&G contends it fully compensated Gaytan via monthly bonus | Court: Shop time is compensable (analogous to Gonzalez; consistent with Integrity Staffing standard) and summary judgment denied on FLSA claim because material facts remain in dispute |
| Whether Gaytan was adequately and timely paid for shop time/overtime | The flat monthly bonus did not equate to proper overtime pay, was sometimes unpaid, and even if paid may violate FLSA timing/crediting rules | G&G submitted payroll records and contends amounts paid satisfied obligations | Court: Genuine disputes exist on amount, timing, and manner of pay (including DOL guidance on timely payment); summary judgment denied |
| Whether alleged FLSA violations are willful (affecting 2‑ vs 3‑year SOL) | Gaytan told G&G owner he was not being paid; owner replied they were not obligated — supports willfulness/reckless disregard | G&G argues any violation was not willful | Court: Willfulness is a factual question; Gaytan produced enough evidence to defeat summary judgment on willfulness/statute of limitations |
| Whether Sales Man compensation claims under NJWPL fail because they are commissions/bonuses | Gaytan limits state claims to unpaid $18/hour for Sales Man work (not commissions) and disputes that payroll records show full payment | G&G argues commissions/bonuses are not "wages" under NJWPL and that Gaytan was fully compensated | Court: NJWPL claim based on unpaid commissions is dismissed (commissions excluded), but genuine factual disputes remain whether Gaytan was paid $18/hour for Sales Man work; summary judgment denied on remaining state-law theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chi. Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment evidence/inference standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2014) (defining "integral and indispensable" activities for FLSA compensability)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (principal-activity test under Portal-to-Portal Act)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (standard for willfulness under FLSA)