Hernandez v. Prime Structure, Inc.
1:23-cv-09487
| E.D.N.Y | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Alejandro Rivera Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others, sued Prime Structure, Inc. and related entities/individuals for wage and hour violations under the FLSA, NYLL, and also for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent tax filings.
- Hernandez was hired in 2016, worked 55+ hours per week, and was paid various hourly wages over time, often in cash, and later by check. He claims misclassification as an independent contractor and improper wage statements.
- Defendants included general contractors (Prime defendants), subcontractors (Marathon, Big Apple, unknown others), and Isreal Stern (owner/president).
- Plaintiff alleged joint employer status, as various entities supervised, scheduled, and compensated workers jointly, and improper practices led to unpaid overtime and lunch breaks.
- Plaintiff also alleged defendants submitted a fraudulent IRS Form 1099 underreporting his wages and misclassified him, resulting in additional tax liability.
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage, testing the adequacy of plaintiff’s pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint Employer Status under FLSA/NYLL | Defendants exercised joint/formal control over plaintiff | Only Prime hired; relationship is standard general/subcontractor | Sufficient facts pled for joint employer liability |
| Wage Notice/Wage Statement Violation (NYLL §195) | Lack of statements hindered ability to contest pay | No concrete injury; plaintiff aware of wage violations | Dismissed; no causal connection to a concrete injury |
| Fraudulent Information Return (IRC §7434) | Defendants willfully underreported wages to IRS | Only actionable for over-reporting, not under-reporting | Sufficient — claim can proceed on underreporting allegation |
| Breach of Contract / Unjust Enrichment | Implicit duty to comply with wage/tax laws; benefit to defs | No valid contract or state claim for tax-related harms | Dismissed; no contract or viable unjust enrichment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (discussing joint employer doctrine under FLSA)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (Carter factors for formal employment relationship)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (joint employer analysis; economic reality test)
- Katzman v. Essex Waterfront Owners, LLC, 660 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2011) (narrowing civil liability under IRC §7434 to actual filing of fraudulent return)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (expands economic reality test for joint employment)