Hugler v. Dominion Granite and Marble, LLC, 1:17-cv-00229

Dominion Granite & Marble, LLC (a Virginia company) employed workers between April 2013 and April 2016 and was investigated by the DOL for FLSA violations.
DOL alleges the company failed to pay required overtime (some employees paid straight time or salaried improperly) and failed to keep adequate time records; violations were willful.
After the DOL investigation, the company paid back amounts withheld, but the Secretary filed this suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under the FLSA.
Individual defendants: Raul Chao (92% owner) and Christian Berard (5% owner, Operations Manager); both alleged to supervise, hire/fire, schedule, and set compensation policies.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) the complaint does not justify injunctive relief at the pleading stage and (2) the individual defendants are not properly alleged to be FLSA "employers."
The Court considered the pleadings de novo for plausibility and drew reasonable inferences for the Secretary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal is proper because the Complaint fails to show injunctive relief is warranted	Secretary contends pleadings alleging willful, multi-year violations and lack of assurances of future compliance suffice to permit injunction claims to proceed	Defendants argue the Complaint lacks sufficient factual material to justify injunctive relief at the pleading stage	Denied — 12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency, not appropriateness of remedy; pleadings plausibly support future injunctive relief given willful violations and risk of recurrence
Whether Chao and Berard are "employers" under the FLSA	Secretary alleges ownership, supervisory control, involvement in hiring/firing, scheduling, and compensation policy — supporting employer status	Defendants contend individual liability not adequately pleaded	Denied — allegations of ownership and operational control permit reasonable inference they are FLSA employers

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and inference standards for pleadings)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435 (Fourth Circuit standards for pleading and inference)
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (flexible, totality-of-circumstances test for FLSA employer status)
Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962 (remedial purpose of FLSA requires broad employer definition)
Schultz v. Capital Int’l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (Fourth Circuit on employer/employee scope under FLSA)
McFeeley v. Jackson St. Entm’t, LLC, 825 F.3d 235 (FLSA definitions construed broadly)
Chao v. Virginia Dep’t of Transp., 291 F.3d 276 (discussion of injunctive relief under FLSA)