694 F.Supp.3d 352
S.D.N.Y.2023Background
- ProAmpac operates a 24/7 Walden, NY packaging facility with converting and printing departments; plaintiffs are long‑tenured, non‑exempt converting‑department machine operators, catchers, and assistants.
- Facility used 12‑hour shifts and an electronic timekeeping system; employees allegedly were required to scan in 5–15 minutes early to don PPE and prepare, but ProAmpac applied a rounding policy that plaintiffs say systematically rounded start times down and end times up to the employer’s benefit.
- Plaintiffs allege unpaid work minutes aggregated into uncompensated overtime; they also allege employers required employees to buy additional steel‑toed boots and (for operators) tools, reducing effective wages, and that wage statements omitted the employer’s legal name and obscured hours worked.
- Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA and NYLL; Defendants moved to dismiss NYLL § 193 (deductions) and § 195 (wage statement) claims; Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective covering converting and printing departments (2019–present).
- The court evaluated pleading/standing standards, examined time records, and considered conditional‑certification standards for FLSA collective notice and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYLL § 193 (illegal deductions for required purchases) | Purchases of boots/tools forced employees below minimum wage; constitute unlawful deductions | Plaintiffs fail to allege actual deductions or that expenses reduced wages below the statutory minimum | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of particularized facts showing amounts/frequency or that wages fell below minimum |
| NYLL § 195 (deficient wage statements / standing) | Wage statements obscured hours and employer identity, delaying enforcement and causing concrete injury | No concrete, particularized injury from informational defects; any monetary harm traces to rounding policy, not the statements | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing — plaintiffs’ alleged informational injury tied only to bringing suit, not downstream harms |
| Conditional certification of FLSA collective (scope & claims) | Converting‑dept employees were subject to common rounding policy that deprived them of pay and overtime; request includes printing dept and tools reimbursement claim | Time records contradict a consistent employer‑beneficial rounding; printing dept claims and tool reimbursement lack factual support | Granted in part: conditionally certify non‑supervisory converting‑department employees for unpaid time and overtime claims only; denied for printing‑dept employees and tool‑reimbursement claim |
| Notice, opt‑in period, and discovery of opt‑ins | Seek 6‑year notice period, 90‑day opt‑in, broad contact production, multilingual and multi‑channel notice | Opposes overbroad period and some notice methods/content | Authorized a 3‑year notice period (linked to complaint filing), 60‑day opt‑in with one midterm reminder, ordered Excel list of converting‑dept non‑supervisory employees (names, addresses, phones, emails, dates), permitted translation into Spanish and notice by mail/email/text/WhatsApp and workplace posting; denied counsel website posting |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading framework)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2016) (informational injury must be concrete)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (mere risk from informational violation insufficient; downstream concrete harms required)
- Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016) (pre‑TransUnion standard allowing material‑risk informational injuries)
- Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435 (2d Cir. 2022) (post‑TransUnion: Strubel’s material‑risk approach rejected)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two‑step FLSA collective certification framework)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district courts may facilitate notice to potential opt‑in plaintiffs)
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (willfulness standard for extending FLSA statute of limitations)
- Oram v. SoulCycle LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (employer need not reimburse business expenses unless failure reduces pay below minimum)
- Mumin v. Uber Techs., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 3d 507 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (NY law: failure to reimburse does not violate wage rules absent showing wages fell below minimum)