Wilson v. Hunam Inn, Inc.
126 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sara Wilson, a former bartender at Hunam Inn, Inc.’s D.C. nightclub (doing business as Cobalt/30 Degrees), sues under the FLSA and DCMWA for unpaid minimum wage and overtime, and an allegedly improper tip-pooling scheme.
- Wilson alleges bartenders were forced to share tips with non‑tipped staff (bar backs, floor employees) and took on added non‑tipped duties (cleaning) after cleaning staff were fired.
- She claims defendants failed to provide the FLSA notice required for using the tipped‑employee exemption and failed to pay overtime for hours over 40 per week.
- Individual defendants Donald Little (owner/president) and David Perruzza (corporate officer, signs payroll checks) moved to dismiss, arguing they are not “employers” under the FLSA/DCMWA; defendants also sought dismissal of a 3‑year (willful) statute‑of‑limitations claim and summary judgment on overtime based on time records.
- The court evaluated pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and summary judgment standards (Celotex/Anderson), denied the motion to dismiss as to the individual defendants (finding plausible allegations of operational control), denied dismissal of the willfulness (third‑year) claim as premature, and denied summary judgment on overtime and employer status without prejudice to renewal after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Little and Perruzza are “employers” under the FLSA/DCMWA | Wilson alleges the individuals were corporate officers who controlled hiring/firing, schedules, wages, and working conditions | Little and Perruzza assert the complaint contains only formulaic recitations insufficient to plead employer status | Denied dismissal: allegations plausibly satisfy the economic‑reality factors; claim survives pleading stage |
| Whether Wilson sufficiently alleged a willful FLSA violation to invoke a 3‑year SOL | Wilson alleges an elaborate tip‑pooling scheme, lack of notice for tipped exemption, unpaid minimum wage for non‑exempt cleaning work, and unpaid overtime | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting willfulness | Denied: willfulness is fact‑intensive; plausible allegations and discovery required to resolve |
| Whether summary judgment should be granted on overtime claims (no >40 hrs) | Wilson disputes accuracy/authenticity of defendants’ time records and seeks discovery | Defendants produced payroll manager declaration and time records showing no work over 40 hrs | Denied without prejudice: summary judgment premature; records/declaration lack sufficient personal‑knowledge and warrant discovery |
| Whether summary judgment should be granted on individual liability after discovery | Wilson contends discovery may confirm operational control by individuals | Defendants seek immediate judgment that individuals are not employers | Denied without prejudice: employer status survives pleading and merits inquiry depends on discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and courts not bound to accept legal conclusions)
- Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (broad definition of "employer" under FLSA)
- Morrison v. Int’l Programs Consortium, 253 F.3d 5 (economic‑reality test and totality of circumstances)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (corporate officers may be employers under FLSA)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (willfulness standard for extended statute of limitations)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute/material fact standards for summary judgment)