Kong v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc.
1:15-cv-06228
E.D.N.YDec 4, 2017Background
- Jun Kong (plaintiff) moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior Memorandum & Order denying his summary judgment motion and granting in part defendants’ motion. The motion challenged denial of overtime claims (FLSA and NYLL) and denial of discrimination claims (New York State and City human rights laws).
- Defendants invoked the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption as a defense to plaintiff’s overtime claims; the court previously found the exemption applied and dismissed overtime claims.
- Plaintiff argued his duties changed over time (driver, loader, helper) and that a week-by-week analysis could show periods when he did not perform safety-affecting work exempted by the MCA.
- Plaintiff also argued collateral estoppel barred defendants from asserting the MCA exemption because a different judge previously found other plaintiffs not exempt in related litigation against the same employer.
- Plaintiff disputed defendants’ stated termination reason and argued termination was discriminatory; the court found the record showed termination for excessive absences, not discriminatory animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of MCA exemption to overtime claims | Kong: duties varied; not always performing safety-affecting work, so exemption should not apply throughout employment | Defs: Kong worked as driver, loader, or helper and engaged in activities directly affecting vehicle safety; exemption applies | Court: Affirmed MCA exemption applies for the periods at issue; Kong’s roles included safety-affecting tasks so exemption applies |
| Need for week-by-week analysis | Kong: Court must analyze job duties week-by-week to identify non-exempt periods | Defs: Continuous expectation of interstate travel and safety-affecting duties makes week-by-week analysis unnecessary | Court: Declined week-by-week analysis; continuous expectation and record show exempt activities throughout employment |
| Collateral estoppel based on related Tang decision | Kong: Prior judge found other plaintiffs not exempt; defendants should be precluded from asserting exemption here | Defs: Facts differ between cases; prior decision not dispositive | Court: Collateral estoppel inapplicable because underlying facts are sufficiently distinct |
| Discrimination/termination claim | Kong: Termination was discriminatory and should go to a jury | Defs: Termination was for excessive absences (legitimate, non-discriminatory reason) | Court: Record supports defendants’ nondiscriminatory reason; no genuine dispute requiring denial of summary judgment on discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for motions for reconsideration; relief is disfavored)
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (grounds for reconsideration include intervening law, new evidence, or clear error)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reconsideration is not for relitigating issues or presenting new theories)
- Fox v. Commonwealth Worldwide Chauffeured Transp. of N.Y., LLC, 865 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (identifies worker categories whose duties directly affect vehicle safety)
- Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 376 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (discusses approaches to MCA exemption and timeframe analysis)
- Dauphin v. Chestnut Ridge Transp., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (MCA exemption requires analyzing both employer and employee activities)