Quintanilla v. Suffolk Paving Corp.
2:09-cv-05331
| E.D.N.Y | Feb 22, 2019Background
- Sixteen current/former laborers, operating engineers, and mechanics sued Suffolk Paving Corp., Suffolk Asphalt Corp., and individual Vecchias alleging unpaid straight time/overtime, underreported hours, prevailing-wage violations, and retaliation (terminations, unemployment benefit opposition, and retaliatory state suits).
- Plaintiffs claim they routinely worked 50–70 hours/week, completed and submitted handwritten timesheets, and that payroll records (computerized) underreported hours; some plaintiffs allege payroll records or timesheets were destroyed.
- Helene Vecchia handled payroll input, prepared certified payroll, paid union dues, and was the sole person inputting hours into the payroll database; plaintiffs say this supports individual employer liability.
- Defendants contend Helene is not an FLSA/NYLL “employer,” some plaintiffs (e.g., Arevalo) worked for related entities (Cross Island, L&V Site Dev.) and thus not for SPC/SAC, and that adverse actions were lawful (abandonment, legitimate collection suits, and good-faith UI challenges).
- The Court resolved a summary-judgment motion: it denied summary judgment on most wage and retaliation claims (finding disputed material facts), denied dismissal of Helene Vecchia and Arevalo, denied summary judgment on unpaid overtime and prevailing-wage claims, and granted summary judgment only in part (certain retaliation claims and common-law claims preempted or deficient).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helene Vecchia is an "employer" under FLSA/NYLL | Helene exercised payroll control, input hours, prepared certified payroll, had hiring/firing authority at times — so economic-reality supports employer status | Helene had bookkeeping/payroll clerical role only, no ownership/control over day-to-day employment decisions | Denied SJ — material facts dispute employer status; jury issue retained |
| Whether Alex Arevalo was employed by SPC/SAC (joint-employer) | Arevalo performed mechanic/work for SPC/SAC, checks sometimes from SPC/SAC, entities functioned as one enterprise under Louis Vecchia | Arevalo’s W-2s show employment by other related entities (L&V Site Dev., Cross Island); different shop work, no joint-employer status | Denied SJ — genuine disputes about integrated entities and economic reality |
| Whether Defendants unlawfully retaliated (FLSA/NYLL) | Plaintiffs made oral/internal complaints and organized to file suit; adverse acts (terminations/non-rehire, UI opposition, state suits, calls to new employers) followed; these are protected and causally connected | Adverse acts resulted from abandonment, legitimate business reasons, good-faith UI challenges, and meritorious collection suits; some actions preceded complaints | Denied SJ for most retaliation claims (direct complaints and organizing protected; factual disputes on causation/pretext); granted for two plaintiffs (Escalante, Castillo) |
| Whether Plaintiffs were unpaid overtime/records adequate under FLSA/NYLL | Plaintiffs gave testimony, some timesheets, and alleged payroll underreporting and destroyed records — Anderson burden satisfied; underreporting and lack of records allow reasonable inference of unpaid overtime and prevailing-wage shortfalls | Employer payroll/paystub records show payment; occasional cash adjustments; plaintiffs are unreliable witnesses | Denied SJ on unpaid overtime and prevailing-wage claims — material fact disputes and inadequate employer proof to negate plaintiffs’ inferences |
| Standing / ability to pursue prevailing-wage claims | Laborers are third-party beneficiaries of public-work contracts required by NYLL §220; plaintiffs need not produce contract at summary judgment if record shows public-work projects and prevailing-wage obligation | Plaintiffs failed to identify specific contract provisions or produce contracts; prevailing-wage claim should be dismissed without contract proof | Denied SJ — factual issues (public projects, underreporting on prevailing jobs) create triable question |
| Viability of state common-law claims (breach, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment) | Alternative remedies if statutory claims fail; seek straight-time and other relief | FLSA/NYLL preempt duplicative common-law claims and plaintiffs failed to plead an independent contract | Partial: SJ GRANTED to extent breach claim duplicates FLSA overtime (preempted); breach claim for unpaid straight time survives; unjust enrichment and quantum meruit GRANTED (dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1961) (economic-reality test requires focusing on substance over formal labels in FLSA employment analysis)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (four-factor test for employer status: hire/fire power, supervision/control, pay rate/method, employment records)
- Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) (Brock factors for economic reality: control, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence, integral nature)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (factors for joint/contractor employer analysis; flexibility of economic realities test)
- Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (no rigid employer test; nonexclusive overlapping factors govern FLSA analysis)
- Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (economic-reality approach and review of relevant employer tests)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (U.S. 2011) (oral complaints can qualify as protected activity under §215(a)(3) when reasonably clear)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard; credibility and weight are jury functions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment burdens: movant’s initial showing and nonmovant’s obligation to show specific facts)