Morris v. Lettire Construction, Corp.
896 F. Supp. 2d 265
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs worked as foremen and laborers for Lettire Construction and related entities (the Company) from 2009 to 2011 at multiple NYC-area sites.
- They allege the Company paid overtime only after April 2010, with early pay in checks for 40 hours and cash for excess hours at straight rates.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a FLSA collective for similarly situated employees between January 4, 2009 and judgment.
- Defendants concede conditional certification is appropriate for foremen and laborers at the same project sites but oppose broader site coverage and post-April 2010 hires.
- Plaintiffs request court-approved notice, opt-in consent forms, a 60-day opt-in period, and disclosure of potential opt-in plaintiffs’ contact information.
- Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, authorizing notice across sites for Jan 4, 2009–Apr 30, 2010 and addressing notice, consent, reminder, and disclosure procedures.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice should issue to all foremen and laborers across Lettire sites. | Morris demonstrates a company-wide policy affecting all sites. | Policy may have been limited to certain sites and times. | Partially granted: notice approved for foremen and laborers at all Lettire sites from Jan 4, 2009 to Apr 30, 2010. |
| Whether to include only those who began before April 2010. | Company-wide policy affected both pre/post-April 2010 workers. | No evidence of FLSA violation post-April 2010; not similarly situated. | Denied for post-April 2010 workers; no notice to those hires. |
| Whether proposed notice, consent form, and reminder letter are admissible. | Materials should facilitate broad opt-in and rights to counsel. | Materials are deficient in recipients, period, routing, and reminders. | In part: recipients narrowed; 60-day period adopted; consent to counsel allowed; reminder notice approved; joint forms to be prepared. |
| Whether defendants must disclose contact information for potential opt-ins. | Needed for sending notice and facilitation of opt-ins. | Not disputed. | Disclosures ordered by Oct. 2, 2012. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step conditional certification standard; notice allowed to opt-in plaintiffs)
- Raniere v. Citigroup Inc., 827 F.Supp.2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (first-stage analysis; lenient evidentiary standard at notice stage)
- Guzelgurgenli v. Prime Time Specials Inc., 883 F.Supp.2d 340 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (permits nationwide notice where common ownership/control exists; credibility not weighed at stage one)
- Karic v. Major Auto. Cos., 799 F.Supp.2d 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (common ownership/control supports notice across related entities; factual nexus shown)