96 F. Supp. 3d 1
D. Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Maria Tapia, Jesús Tapia, Elizabeth Diaz, and Thomas Rugelio are Connecticut theater cleaners who sued K.E.R. Cleaning Services (KER) and KER President Mayron Mateo under the FLSA and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA) for unpaid wages and related violations.
- Plaintiffs were paid flat daily or biweekly amounts ($40/day or $825/2 weeks) while working seven days a week; several experienced underpayment and extended nonpayment in 2012–2013 and complained repeatedly.
- Defendants allegedly controlled hiring, supervision, schedules, pay, visited Connecticut locations, failed to post required wage notices, and did not maintain accurate payroll records.
- Defendants were served with the complaint but did not appear; the clerk entered default and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment.
- The court took the well‑pleaded allegations as true (except damages), found liability under the FLSA and CMWA, awarded unpaid wages, liquidated damages (under FLSA and CMWA or Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-72 as applicable), and attorneys’ fees and costs, and directed the clerk to enter judgment totaling the amounts listed for each plaintiff plus $9,507.50 in fees/costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs pled facts establishing an employer‑employee relationship and FLSA liability | Plaintiffs allege KER/Mateo controlled hiring, supervision, pay, schedules and thus employed them and paid below minimum wage | No responsive filings (default) — no opposing factual or legal challenge | Court: Allegations sufficient; default admits well‑pleaded facts; FLSA liability found (Zheng factors satisfied) |
| Whether Plaintiffs state a claim under the CMWA and whether Mateo qualifies as an "employer" under state law | Plaintiffs allege Mateo had ultimate authority over hours and pay and thus is an employer under CMWA | No response (default) | Court: Allegations meet CMWA employer definition; CMWA claim sustained (Butler standard) |
| Whether liquidated damages are recoverable under FLSA and CMWA (and Conn. Gen. Stat. §31‑72) | Plaintiffs seek double (liquidated) damages under FLSA and CMWA (or statutory double damages under §31‑72 in lieu) given willful/nonpayment and bad faith | No response (default) | Court: Defendants cannot show good faith; awards double liquidated damages under FLSA and CMWA; §31‑72 damages available but would be alternative to FLSA/CMWA liquidated damages |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable | Plaintiffs request $300/hr for 30 hours and costs under FLSA fee‑shifting provision | No response (default) | Court: Rate and hours reasonable in district FLSA practice; awards $9,507.50 in fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (Rule 55 two‑step default judgment framework)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir.) (factors for FLSA employer‑employee determination)
- Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir.) (FLSA liquidated damages standard; double damages are norm)
- Fustok v. Conti‑Commodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.) (court may forgo evidentiary hearing if damages computable)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51 (2d Cir.) (default admits well‑pleaded allegations except damages)
- Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702 (2d Cir.) (default judgment principles)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (fee award principles)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Ass’n v. County of Albany, 493 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (lodestar and reasonable rate guidance for fee awards)
- Butler v. Hartford Tech., Inc., 243 Conn. 454 (Conn. 1997) (CMWA employer definition)
- Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc., 311 Conn. 581 (Conn. 2014) (awarding attorney’s fees and double damages under Conn. statutes for bad faith wage withholding)