Jones v. Changsila
271 F. Supp. 3d 9
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Alsis Jones, a former employee at two Sala Thai restaurants (D.C. and Maryland), alleges he worked 70–80 hours/week from 2006–2008 but was paid a biweekly salary (~$1,500) and denied overtime.
- Jones claims he was mislabeled a "manager" though he performed nonexempt work (cook, busboy, waiter, cashier) and lacked authority to hire/fire; employers kept no time records.
- He alleges accountant Hans Ravesteijn prepared and submitted false W-2s to the IRS and state authorities reporting substantial tip income Jones never received, producing tax liabilities Jones paid through a multi-year plan.
- Defendants named: restaurant entities (Green T Group II, Ja-Roen-D), owner Pramote Changsila, and accountant Ravesteijn; Jones also alleges Green T Group II is successor to original Green T Group.
- Jones asserts an FLSA overtime claim (collective action) and six common-law claims (fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding-and-abetting, accounting, unjust enrichment) stemming from the payroll/tax reporting; defendants moved to dismiss.
- Court accepts complaint allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes and rules: partial grant/partial denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was entitled to overtime under FLSA (executive exemption) | Jones alleges he performed primarily nonexempt duties (cook, busboy, waiter, cashier), lacked hiring/firing authority, and thus is entitled to overtime | Defendants contend Jones was a bona fide executive ("manager") paid a salary above the regulatory threshold and thus exempt | Court: Denied dismissal on this ground — factual allegations do not establish exemption at pleading stage; exemption is an affirmative defense for employer to prove |
| Whether Ravesteijn and Green T Group II are "employers" under FLSA | Jones alleges shared management/payroll and that Green T Group II is successor; alleges Ravesteijn handled payroll and told Jones about tips | Defendants argue complaint fails to plead employer status for Ravesteijn or any employment relationship with Green T Group II | Court: Dismissed FLSA claim as to Ravesteijn (insufficient allegations of employer control); denied dismissal as to Green T Group II (transcript + allegations support successor/employer theory) |
| Whether complaint asserts a civil RICO claim | Jones includes scattered RICO references but does not plead RICO among the causes of action | Defendants seek dismissal of any RICO claim for lack of pleading and on merits | Court: Treats complaint as not asserting a RICO claim due to insufficient clarity; declines to address merits of RICO dismissal |
| Whether state common-law claims are preempted or time-barred | Jones says common-law claims (fraud, unjust enrichment, accounting) arise from false tax reporting distinct from wage claims and are timely (or tolled/estopped) | Defendants argue FLSA preempts state claims and that all claims are barred by statutes of limitations | Court: Denied dismissal for preemption (state claims vindicate distinct wrongs) and denied dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds (tolling/estoppel potentially available; premature to decide on face of complaint) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (FLSA exemptions are affirmative defenses borne by employer)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (test for supplemental jurisdiction/common nucleus of operative fact)
- de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 714 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (affirmative defenses rarely justify dismissal at pleading stage)
- Morrison v. Int’l Programs Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (economic-reality test and employer control factors under FLSA)
- Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (affirmative defenses may be raised on Rule 12(b) when clear on face of complaint)
- Cannon v. District of Columbia, 717 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (burden of proof on employer for exemptions)