Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127655
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs and collective plaintiffs sue Bebo Foods, Inc. and related entities for FLSA, DCWPCL, and EPA violations; Donna is named as joint employer.
- Court granted summary judgment on July 27, 2010 finding liability and ordered damages after two subsequent hearings (Aug. 4 and Aug. 24, 2010).
- Plaintiffs/workers were employed at Galileo Restaurant and Bebo Trattoria from 1992 to 2008 in front-of-house roles; plaintiffs allege widespread wage-and-tip mis practices.
- Defendants paid inconsistent wages, issued unsigned or post-dated checks, and paid credit-card tips in cash, leading to unpaid wages and tips.
- Tip credits were improperly claimed; credit-card tips were withheld, and overtime and minimum wages were not properly paid.
- Court approved a damages framework under FLSA and DCWPCL, applying just-and-reasonable inferences due to deficient payroll records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are plaintiffs and collective plaintiffs similarly situated under §216(b)? | Ventura et al. allege uniform wage practices across defendants warrant collective treatment. | Donna and the corporations contest uniformity of claims. | Yes; plaintiffs and collective plaintiffs are similarly situated, action certified as collective. |
| Was the tip credit properly taken under the FLSA? | Defendants improperly claimed a tip credit and withheld tips, violating the FLSA. | Defendants believed tip practices complied with law. | Tip credit improper; damages include difference between minimum wage and paid wages, plus unpaid tips. |
| How should unpaid minimum wage and overtime damages be calculated? | Plaintiffs provided hours/durations; seek full minimum wage and overtime amounts. | Defendants contend more limited calculations based on paid wages and pay records. | Damages awarded using just-and-reasonable inferences from record; specific per-plaintiff damages enumerated in opinion. |
| Should prejudgment interest and consequential damages be awarded? | Plaintiffs seek prejudgment interest and consequential damages. | No explicit arguments against; not addressed in detail. | Denied; remedies under FLSA and DCWPCL are exclusive; prejudgment interest and consequential damages disallowed. |
| Are Donna and the corporate defendants jointly and severally liable; how is apportionment handled? | Donna is a joint employer; damages should be recoverable from any liable defendant. | Apportionment among entities disputed. | Donna and corporate defendants are jointly and severally liable; plaintiffs may recover from any defendant, with apportionment to be negotiated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (Supreme Court, 1946) (supports using just and reasonable inferences when records are inadequate)
- Arias v. U.S. Serv. Indus., 80 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (uncontested damages may be inferred from various records)
- Pleitez v. Carney, 594 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2009) (court may infer damages from sworn declarations and documents)
- National Rifle Association v. Ailes, 428 A.2d 816 (D.C. 1981) (shifts burden to defendant to refute plaintiff's claim after prima facie showing)
- Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (Supreme Court, 1945) (prejudgment interest generally not recoverable when liquidated damages awarded)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983) (joint employer liability and liability framework under FLSA)
- Carter v. Marshall, 457 F. Supp. 38 (D.D.C. 1978) (remedies under FLSA are generally exclusive)