Sun et al v. China 1221, Inc. et al
Filing
245
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Court denies double recovery on Plaintiffs' FLSA and NYLL claims and awards liquidated damages and prejudgment interest as set forth above. Now that the Court has resolved all legal is sues related to the parties' damages proposals, the Court will issue a judgment in a separately docketed order awarding damages to Hengjin Sun in the amount of $104,052.60; Youqi Yang in the amount of $33,427.46; and Hui Song in the amount of $43,980.68, based on the calculations below: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall make any submissions regarding the Remaining Plaintiffs' eligibility to recover consistent with Section IV of this opinion by May 2, 2016. Should the Remaining Plaintiffs choose to submit any additional evidence in response, they must do so by June 1, 2016. The Court will then issue a final judgment with respect to the Remaining Plaintiffs thereafter. The Court also notes th at Plaintiffs indicate their intention to move for costs and attorneys' fees in the future by separate memorandum. (Doc. No. 231 at 24- 25.) The Court finds that briefing on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs would be premature until damages are awarded to the Remaining Plaintiffs. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 4/19/2016) (kl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HENGJIN SUN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 12-cv-7135 (RJS)
OPINION AND ORDER
-vCHINA 1221, INC. d/b/a CHINA FUN,
Defendant.
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
On October 23, 2015, the parties appeared for a final pretrial conference in this matter and
agreed to proceed to trial on a test case involving Plaintiffs Hengjin Sun, Youqi Yang, and Hui
Song (the “Trial Plaintiffs”) on their claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). (Doc. No. 181.) The parties further agreed that the
remaining eighteen Plaintiffs (the “Remaining Plaintiffs”) would be “bound by the result of that
trial.” (Id.) In addition, the parties stipulated that a jury verdict in the Trial Plaintiffs’ favor would
result in the Court “decid[ing] damages for the [Remaining Plaintiffs] based on start dates and end
dates and hours worked claimed by the [P]laintiffs.” (Doc. No. 203 at 21:23–22:1.)
Between November 2, 2015 and November 9, 2015, the Court held a jury trial with the
Trial Plaintiffs on seven causes of action: (1) minimum wage violations under the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. § 206 (“FLSA Min. Wage”); (2) minimum wage violations under NYLL § 652 (“NYLL
Min. Wage”); (3) unpaid overtime under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (“FLSA OT”); (4) unpaid
overtime under NYLL, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 146–1.4 (effective Jan. 1, 2011); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1371.3 (repealed effective Jan. 1, 2011) (“NYLL OT”); (5) unlawful deductions under NYLL §
193(1); (6) spread-of-hours violations under NYLL, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 146–1.6(a) (effective Jan. 1,
2011); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 137-1.7 (“NYLL SOH”) (repealed effective Jan. 1, 2011); and (7) wage
statement violations brought under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL §§ 195, 198-d (“NYLL
Wage Stmt.”). On November 7, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment as a
matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Felix Wu, Dorothea Wu, and Albert Wu.
(Doc. No. 194.) On November 9, 2015, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Trial Plaintiffs
on all claims, except the fifth cause of action. (Doc. No. 202.) Furthermore, because the jury
found that Defendant’s FLSA violations were willful (see id.), the jury awarded damages pursuant
to the three-year statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).1 The
following table represents the jury’s compensatory damages awards with respect to each Trial
Plaintiff:
Trial
Plaintiff
Sun
Yang
Song
FLSA
Min. Wage
$13,508
$2,860
$0
NYLL
Min. Wage
$33,638
$10,648
$14,652
FLSA OT
$6,308
$1,080
$0
NYLL
OT
$14,003
$4,752
$5,628
NYLL
SOH
$5,000
$2,000
$1,500
NYLL
Wage Stmt.
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
On December 4, 2015, the Court struck the jury’s finding with respect to Trial Plaintiffs
Yang and Song’s seventh cause of action for wage statement violations since both employees had
left China Fun before April 9, 2011, which was the date the Wage Theft Prevention Act became
effective. (Doc. No. 228 at 3–4.) Now before the Court are the parties’ rival proposals for damages
with respect to the Trial Plaintiffs and Remaining Plaintiffs. For the reasons stated below, the
Court rules on the legal issues presented in these proposals, awards damages to the Trial Plaintiffs,
and sets forth the procedure for determining the Remaining Plaintiffs’ damages.
1
“The FLSA generally provides for a two-year statute of limitations on actions to enforce its provisions, but allows a
three-year limitations period for a cause of action arising out of a willful violation.” Trinidad v. Pret A Manger (USA)
Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 2d 545, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the jury
awarded damages based on FLSA violations between September 21, 2009 and September 21, 2012 with respect to
Trial Plaintiffs Sun and Yang. (Doc. No. 202.)
2
I. DUPLICATIVE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES2
Defendant first argues that the Court should revise the jury’s damages award to prevent
Plaintiffs from “recover[ing] minimum wage and overtime damages under both the FLSA and
New York law for the same period of time.” (Doc. No. 229 at 2.) Indeed, the Court instructed the
jury members not to “concern yoursel[ves] with whether one verdict may duplicate another
verdict. . . . After you return the verdicts on all plaintiffs, the Court will then consider whether
any verdict duplicates any other verdicts, and, if so, what action should be taken.” (Doc. No. 226
at 528:1–7.)
The law in this Circuit is clear: “Obviously, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover twice”
under both the FLSA and NYLL “for the same injury.” Cao v. Wu Liang Ye Lexington Rest., Inc.,
No. 08-cv-3725 (DC), 2010 WL 4159391, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010); see also, e.g.,
Maldonado v. La Nueva Rampa, Inc., No. 10-cv-8195 (LLS) (JLC), 2012 WL 1669341, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2012) (“Plaintiffs may not recover under both NYLL and the FLSA for the
same injury.”); Jiao v. Shi Ya Chen, No. 03-cv-0165 (DF), 2007 WL 4944767, at *17 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 30, 2007) (same). Where, as here, “a plaintiff is entitled to damages under both federal and
state wage law,” the Court has discretion to award Plaintiffs damages under the statute providing
the greatest amount of relief. Jiao, 2007 WL 4944767, at *17. Here, the FLSA provides the
greatest amount of relief for the overlapping minimum wage and overtime claims that accrued
after September 21, 2009 because, as discussed further below, it permits recovery of liquidated
2
In deciding this motion, the Court considered Defendant’s damages proposal and accompanying declaration and
exhibits (Doc. No. 229), Plaintiffs’ damages proposal and accompanying declaration and exhibits (Doc. Nos. 230,
231), Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s proposal (Doc. No. 234), Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ proposal and
accompanying declaration and exhibits (Doc. No. 235), and the transcript from the conference held on December 22,
2015 (Doc. No. 239).
3
damages in a sum equal to the full amount of unpaid wages for all relevant years. See Jiao, 2007
WL 4944767, at *17.3
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs are still entitled to “non-overlapping damages” under NYLL – in
other words, damages Plaintiffs incurred under NYLL for claims that accrued between September
21, 2006 and September 21, 2009, which are timely under NYLL, but not the FLSA. See Cao,
2010 WL 4159391, at *3. Therefore, the Court will award the full amount of Plaintiffs’ FLSA
damages, and, in order to calculate Plaintiffs’ NYLL damages, the Court will subtract the total
FLSA damages award from the total NYLL damages award. See id. (subtracting the FLSA
damages from the NYLL damages to calculate the NYLL damages); Pinzon v. Paul Lent Mech.
Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-3384 (DRH) (WDW), 2012 WL 4174725, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012)
(same), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4174410 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012). Thus,
with respect to Trial Plaintiffs Sun and Yang, who brought timely claims under both the FLSA and
NYLL, their jury awards should be modified as listed below:
Trial
Plaintiff
Sun
Yang
Song
FLSA
Min. Wage
$13,508
$2,860
$0
NYLL
Min. Wage
$20,130
$7,788
$14,652
FLSA
OT
$6,308
$1,080
$0
NYLL
OT
$7,695
$3,672
$5,628
NYLL
SOH
$5,000
$2,000
$1,500
NYLL
Wage Stmt.
$2,500
$0
$0
II. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
The Court next turns to Plaintiffs’ eligibility to recover liquidated damages. “Under the
FLSA, a plaintiff who demonstrates that he was improperly denied either minimum wage or
overtime wages may recover, in addition to reimbursement of these unpaid wages, an equal amount
3
Between September 21, 2009, the date Sun’s and Yang’s FLSA claims first became timely, through March 1, 2012
and February 25, 2010, the dates the two employees respectively stopped working for Defendant, the minimum wage
under both the FLSA and NYLL was $7.25. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C); NYLL § 652(1); (see also Doc. No. 226
at 504:24–505:1, 512:2–3). Plaintiffs were also entitled to the same overtime under the two statutes, which both
require that employees “be compensated at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any
hours worked in excess of forty per week.” Nakahata v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 200
(2d Cir. 2013).
4
as liquidated damages.” Yuquilema v. Manhattan’s Hero Corp., No. 13-cv-461 (WHP) (JLC),
2014 WL 4207106, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2014) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 13-cv-461, 2014 WL 5039428 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014); see also
Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 150 (2d Cir. 2008). A Court has
discretion, however, to deny employees liquidated damages “where the employer shows that,
despite its failure to pay appropriate wages, it acted in subjective ‘good faith’ with objectively
‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that its acts or omissions did not violate the FLSA.” Barfield,
537 F.3d at 150.
While NYLL also provides for liquidated damages for wage-claim violations, e.g., Santana
v. Brown, No. 14-cv-4279 (LGS), 2015 WL 4865311, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2015), for
violations that occurred prior to November 24, 2009, an employee must establish “that [the]
employer’s violation was willful,” Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d
306, 317–18 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), and can only recover liquidated damages in the amount of 25% of
the total unpaid wages for violations before April 9, 2011, Begum v. Ariba Disc., Inc., No. 12-cv6620 (DLC), 2015 WL 223780, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015). However, an amendment to
NYLL, effective November 24, 2009, “incorporated the federal standard” and shifted the burden
of proving good faith to the employer. Galeana, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see also NYLL § 198(1a) (permitting liquidated damages unless “the employer proves a good faith basis for believing that
its underpayment of wages was in compliance with the law”). Another amendment to NYLL,
effective April 9, 2011, authorized liquidated damages amounting to 100% of the total unpaid
wages for violations thereafter. See NYLL § 663(1); see also Pinzon, 2012 WL 4174725, at *4 &
n.1 (denying retroactive application of the amended NYLL liquidated damages provisions);
McLean v. Garage Mgmt. Corp., No. 09-cv-9325 (DLC), 2012 WL 1358739, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
5
19, 2012) (same). Liquidated damages are not available on NYLL’s wage-statement penalties.
Chen, 2015 WL 5710320, at *7.
The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs can recover cumulative liquidated damages under
both the FLSA and NYLL for the minimum-wage and overtime violations that occurred during
the same period. (Compare Doc. No. 234 at 5, with Doc No. 229 at 4.) Several judges in this
district, including this one, have awarded cumulative liquidated damages under both the FLSA and
NYLL because the statutes’ liquidated damages provisions serve different purposes. Ling Nan
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., No. 99-cv-9033 (RJS), 2009 WL 1383488, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 18,
2009); see also Yu G. Ke v. Saigon Grill, Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 240, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Specifically, judges have found that liquidated damages under the FLSA are compensatory, while
liquidated damages under NYLL are punitive because they are designed “to deter an employer’s
willful withholding of wages due.” Ling Nan Zheng, 2009 WL 1383488, at *1 (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
However, the above-cited cases involved pre-2009 conduct, and the New York
Legislature’s 2009 and 2011 reforms have spawned “an emerging trend towards denying a
cumulative recovery of liquidated damages” under the FLSA and NYLL. Santana, 2015 WL
4865311, at *5 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Put another way, the 2009 and 2011
amendments “bring the two statutes more directly in line with one another,” McGlone v. Contract
Callers Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 172, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), since both entail substantively similar
“good faith” standards and award 100% liquidated damages. Id.; see also Inclan v. N.Y. Hosp.
Grp., Inc., 95 F. Supp. 3d 490, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “Because both forms of liquidated damages
serve the same purpose and have the same practical effect of deterring wage violations and
compensating underpaid workers,” Chen v. New Fresco Tortillas Taco LLC, No. 15-cv-2158 (RA)
(AJP), 2015 WL 5710320, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015), NYLL’s recent amendments “have
6
undermined the basis,” such as it was, for distinguishing between FLSA’s and NYLL’s liquidated
damages provisions, Inclan, 95 F. Supp. 3d at 506. In the absence of appellate authority on the
subject, Santana, 2015 WL 4865311, at *5, the Court joins the emerging jurisprudential trend and
finds that an employee may not recover cumulative liquidated damages under both the FLSA and
NYLL for overlapping claims after November 24, 2009.
Defendant also argues that the Court should not award liquidated damages for Defendant’s
minimum wage violations that took place after June 11, 2007 because of Defendant’s “good faith
and objective reasonableness in complying with the tip credit requirements since” that date. (Doc.
No. 229 at 4–5.) However, the Court declines Defendant’s request, since the jury clearly found
that Defendant’s minimum wage violations were willful. (Doc. No. 202.) Indeed, Defendant and
its counsel had ample opportunity to present evidence and make arguments to the jury regarding
Defendant’s lack of willfulness; the jury rejected these arguments and concluded that Defendant’s
time records, even those after June 11, 2007, were false and maintained for the purpose of
misleading the Department of Labor. Quite simply, if the jury had credited Defendant’s witnesses
and time records, it could not have returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. Thus, the Court cannot
credit Defendant’s arguments that it believed in good faith that it was complying with federal and
state law.
Accordingly, to calculate liquidated damages, the Court will award 100% liquidated
damages on Trial Plaintiffs’ timely FLSA claims, which are any claims that accrued between
September 21, 2009 and September 21, 2012. Trial Plaintiffs may also recover 25% liquidated
damages on their NYLL claims for minimum-wage and overtime violations that accrued prior to
November 24, 2009. To calculate this amount, the Court estimates the percentage of each Trial
Plaintiff’s timely minimum wage and overtime claims that accrued between September 21, 2006
and November 24, 2009, and awards 25% of that amount. The Court also awards liquidated
7
damages on all of Plaintiffs’ spread-of-hours claims brought pursuant to NYLL, since there are no
overlapping federal spread-of-hours claims. The Court awards 25% liquidated damages on timely
spread-of-hours claims that accrued prior to April 9, 2011. To calculate this amount, the Court
estimates the percentage of each Trial Plaintiff’s timely spread-of-hours claims that accrued
between September 21, 2006 and April 11, 2011, and awards 25% of that amount as liquidated
damages. The Court also awards 100% liquidated damages on the portion of each Trial Plaintiff’s
spread-of-hours claims that accrued after April 9, 2011.
With respect to Trial Plaintiff Sun, the Court awards 100% liquidated damages on his
timely FLSA claims, totaling $19,816. The Court also awards Trial Plaintiff Sun 25% liquidated
damages on his NYLL claims for minimum-wage and overtime violations that accrued prior to
November 24, 2009. To calculate this amount, the Court estimates that 58.4% of Trial Plaintiff
Sun’s timely minimum-wage and overtime claims accrued between September 21, 2006 and
November 24, 2009, totaling $27,808.55 and awards 25% of that amount, $6,952, in liquidated
damages. The Court also awards 25% liquidated damages on Plaintiff Sun’s timely spread-ofhours claims that accrued prior to April 9, 2011. To calculate this amount, the Court estimates that
83.6% of Trial Plaintiff Sun’s compensatory damages on his timely spread-of-hours claims
accrued between September 21, 2006 and April 9, 2011, totaling $4,175.47, and the Court awards
25% of that amount, $1,043.87, in liquidated damages. The Court also awards 100% liquidated
damages on the estimated 16.4% of Trial Plaintiff Sun’s spread-of-hours claims that accrued after
April 9, 2011, totaling $824.53. Thus, the Court awards a total of $8,820.54 in liquidated damages
under NYLL.
With respect to Trial Plaintiff Yang, the Court awards 100% liquidated damages on his
timely FLSA claims, totaling $3,940. The Court also awards Trial Plaintiff Yang 25% liquidated
damages on his NYLL claims for minimum-wage and overtime violations that accrued prior to
8
November 24, 2009. To calculate this amount, the Court estimates that 77.4% of his timely
minimum-wage and overtime claims accrued between September 21, 2006 and November 24,
2009, totaling $11,926.25, and awards 25% of that amount, $2,981.54, in liquidated damages. The
Court also awards 25% liquidated damages on Plaintiff Yang’s timely spread-of-hours claims that
accrued prior to April 9, 2011. Since Plaintiff Yang’s timely-spread-of-hours claims totaled
$2,000, it awards 25% of that amount, $500, in liquidated damages. None of Plaintiff Sun’s
spread-of-hours claims accrued after April 9, 2011. Thus, the Court awards Trial Plaintiff Yang a
total of $3,481.54 in liquidated damages under NYLL.
With respect to Trial Plaintiff Song, he is not entitled to liquidated damages under FLSA
because he did not bring timely FLSA claims. All of his minimum-wage, overtime, and spreadof-hours claims under NYLL, totaling $21,780, accrued prior to November 24, 2009. Trial
Plaintiff Song will therefore be awarded liquidated damages amounting to 25% of that amount,
totaling $5,445. Thus, the total amount of liquidated damages awarded to the Trial Plaintiffs is:
Sun
Yang
Song
FLSA Liquidated Damages
$19,816.00
$3,940.00
$0
NYLL Liquidated Damages
$8,820.54
$3,841.54
$5,445.00
III. PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs may not obtain prejudgment interest under the FLSA.
(Doc. No. 229 at 5.)
The Court agrees with Defendant.
An employee may not recover
“prejudgment interest on any portion of their recovery for which they have been awarded federal
liquidated damages,” since liquidated damages under the FLSA “are considered compensatory in
nature and thus serve as a form of pre-judgment interest.” Yuquilema, 2014 WL 4207106, at *11
(citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, because the Court awards liquidated
9
damages on both of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, Plaintiffs may not also recover prejudgment interest
on any amount received as a consequence of their FLSA claims.
Defendant concedes, however, that Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on
compensatory damages awarded pursuant to NYLL. (Doc. No. 229 at 5.) Writing nearly two
decades ago, the Second Circuit recognized that courts may award prejudgment interest on nonoverlapping NYLL wage claims even where a plaintiff also received liquidated damages. Reilly
v. Natwest Mkts. Grp. Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Najnin v. Dollar Mountain,
Inc., No. 14-cv-5758 (WHP), 2015 WL 6125436, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015). The Second
Circuit concluded that the two remedies were not duplicative because liquidated damages under
NYLL served as a penalty, while prejudgment interest under NYLL was compensatory. Reilly,
181 F.3d at 265. The Court questions the vitality of the Second Circuit’s holding in Reilly in light
of the New York legislature’s 2009 and 2011 reforms, which have eroded the distinctions between
the FLSA’s and NYLL’s liquidated damages provisions, such that they both serve compensatory
purposes. Chen, 2015 WL 5710320, at *7; Inclan, 95 F. Supp. 3d at 506. If, as numerous courts
have concluded, liquidated damages under the FLSA “serve as a form of pre-judgment interest,”
Yuquilema, 2014 WL 4207106, at *11, so too do liquidated damages under NYLL as a result of
the 2009 and 2011 reforms. However, because Defendant has conceded that Plaintiffs are entitled
to prejudgment interest under NYLL, and since nearly all non-overlapping NYLL wage claims are
based on injuries that took place prior to the legislature’s reform in November 2009, the Court
grants Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest on their non-overlapping NYLL minimum wage, overtime,
and spread-of-hours claims, even though they have also recovered liquidated damages.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Trial Plaintiffs prejudgment interest on their nonoverlapping NYLL wage claims at a simple rate of 9% per year. CPLR § 5004; see also
Castellanos v. Mid Bronx Cmty. Hous. Mgmt. Corp., No. 13-cv-3061 (JGK), 2014 WL 2624759,
10
at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014). Where, as here, Plaintiffs’ “damages were incurred at various
times,” prejudgment interest is calculated “from a ‘single reasonable intermediate date.’” Tackie
v. Keff Enters. LLC, No. 14-cv-2074 (JPO), 2014 WL 4626229, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014)
(quoting CPLR § 5001(b)). Courts applying NYLL in wage-and-hour cases “often choose the
midpoint of the plaintiff’s employment within the limitations period.” Id. (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the Court will award prejudgment interest on each Plaintiff’s NYLL wage claims in
the amount of 9% per year, starting from the midpoint of each Plaintiff’s employment within the
limitations period, through the date of judgment, April 19, 2016. Id. However, as stated earlier,
the Court will only permit prejudgment interest on Plaintiffs’ NYLL wage claims that do not
overlap with their FLSA claims. Id.; Chen, 2015 WL 5710320, at *9.
Applying these standards to Trial Plaintiff Sun’s claims for prejudgment interest, the Court
finds that Sun’s claims became timely starting on September 21, 2006, and that he worked for
Defendant until March 1, 2012. The mid-point between these two dates is June 9, 2009, 6.86 years
before the judgment. Having been awarded a total of $32,825 for wages owed under nonoverlapping NYLL claims, Trial Plaintiff Sun is also owed $20,275.06 in prejudgment interest.
As for Trial Plaintiff Yang: he worked for Defendant from April 1, 2008 through February 25,
2010. The midpoint between these two dates is March 15, 2009, 7.10 years before the judgment.
Having been awarded $13,460 for his non-overlapping wage claims brought under NYLL, Trial
Plaintiff Yang is also owed $8,605.92 in prejudgment interest. With respect to Trial Plaintiff Song,
his claims became timely starting on September 21, 2006, and he stopped working for Defendant
on October 17, 2008. The mid-point between those dates is October 5, 2007, 8.55 years before the
judgment. Having been awarded a total of $21,780 for his non-overlapping wage claims brought
under NYLL, Trial Plaintiff Song is now owed $16,755.68 in prejudgment interest. Accordingly,
the total amount of prejudgment interest for the Trial Plaintiffs is as follows:
11
Start Date
Sun
Yang
Song
End Date
Years from
Midpoint to
Judgment
6.86
7.10
8.55
Midpoint
Date
9/21/2006 03/01/2012 6/11/2009
04/01/2008 02/25/2010 3/15/2009
9/21/2006 10/17/2008 10/5/2007
Unpaid
Wages
(NYLL)
$32,825
$13,460
$21,780
Prejudgment
Interest
(NYLL)
$20,275.06
$8,605.92
$16,755.68
IV. EXTRAPOLATION OF DAMAGES TO REMAINING PLAINTIFFS
The Court next turns to the Remaining Plaintiffs’ damages. Pursuant to the parties’ pretrial stipulation, the Court is responsible for resolving any issues regarding “the number of hours
worked, the period of employment, and liquidated damages and fees.” (Doc. No. 181.) Thus, the
Court must resolve all issues of fact and law concerning the Remaining Plaintiffs’ damages.
In its damages proposal, Defendant disputes the employment dates for nearly half of the
remaining Plaintiffs and submits a declaration from Defendant’s general manager, Alice Chen,
with accompanying exhibits consisting of Defendant’s employee records. (See Doc. No. 229 at 6;
Doc. No. 229, Ex. 2 (“Chen Decl.”).) In fact, Defendant asserts that seven of the Remaining
Plaintiffs are not entitled to any damages, either because they never worked for Defendant or
because their work dates fall outside of the limitations period. (Id.) Defendant also asserts that
certain Remaining Plaintiffs were, in fact, paid at or above minimum wage. (Id.) In response,
Plaintiffs argue that each Remaining Plaintiff is entitled to recover based on the start and end dates
asserted in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 234 at 4.) Plaintiffs also urge the Court to strike
the Chen Declaration and its accompanying exhibits because the jury found her testimony not to
be credible and because, with trial having ended, the Court should not admit any additional
evidence into the record. (Id.)
Here, the jury has already reached a verdict in Trial Plaintiffs’ favor, notwithstanding
Defendant’s heavy reliance on its internal records and Ms. Chen’s testimony at trial. Accordingly,
the Court will not credit them. Furthermore, in light of Trial Plaintiffs’ favorable verdict, the Court
12
presumes that the employment dates averred by the Remaining Plaintiffs are accurate. However,
the Court will afford Defendant a limited opportunity to submit additional evidence regarding the
Remaining Plaintiffs’ employment dates.
Specifically, Defendant may come forward with
evidence, if any, other than the testimony from Ms. Chen or its own employment records, that
would establish that a Remaining Plaintiff’s representation of his employment dates amounts to
bad faith or a fraud upon the Court. See Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Tech., LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d 378,
394 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“The Court has inherent authority ‘to conduct an independent investigation
in order to determine whether it has been the victim of fraud.’” (quoting Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)). For example, if Defendant can establish that a Remaining Plaintiff
was not living in or near New York City or was physically incapacitated at the time she claims to
have worked for Defendant, the Court will consider denying that Remaining Plaintiff damages.
The Court will also permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to any evidence submitted by
Defendant. Unless Defendant can point to such evidence, the Court will award judgment and
damages to each Remaining Plaintiff consistent with the jury’s verdict, the Court’s subsequent
orders, and the time period each Remaining Plaintiff attests to having worked.
Finally, the Court agrees with Defendant that the jury cannot possibly have credited the
Trial Plaintiffs’ testimony that they worked approximately sixty-six hours per week while being
paid $450 per month, since such a finding would have resulted in a substantially larger damages
award for each Trial Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 235 at 2.) The Court thus rejects Plaintiffs’ proposal that
it assume each Remaining Plaintiff worked 66 hours per week and was paid $450 per month in
apportioning damages. (Doc. No. 232 at 4, 9.) Instead, after determining each Remaining
Plaintiff’s work dates, the Court will take the annual average of timely FLSA and NYLL minimum
wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensatory damages for the Trial Plaintiffs, multiply that
amount based on the number of years each Remaining Plaintiff worked for Defendant, and award
13
that amount as compensatory damages, as set forth in principle in Defendant’s damages proposal
(Doc. No. 229, Ex. 1). The Court will also award liquidated damages and prejudgment interest
consistent with the principles articulated in this opinion and will award wage-statement penalties
for those Remaining Plaintiffs who worked after April 9, 2011.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies double recovery on Plaintiffs’ FLSA and
NYLL claims and awards liquidated damages and prejudgment interest as set forth above. Now
that the Court has resolved all legal issues related to the parties’ damages proposals, the Court will
issue a judgment in a separately docketed order awarding damages to Hengjin Sun in the amount
of $104,052.60; Youqi Yang in the amount of $33,427.46; and Hui Song in the amount of
$43,980.68, based on the calculations below:
FLSA Min. Wage
NYLL Min. Wage
FLSA OT
NYLL OT
NYLL SOH
NYLL Wage Stmt.
FLSA Liq. Damages
NYLL Liq. Damages
NYLL Prej. Int.
Total
Sun
$13,508
$20,130
$6,308
$7,695
$5,000
$2,500
$19,816
$8,820.54
$20,275.06
$104,052.60
Yang
$2,860
$7,788
$1,080
$3,672
$2,000
$0
$3,940
$3,481.54
$8,605.92
$33,427.46
Song
$0
$14,652
$0
$5,628
$1,500
$0
$0
$5,445.00
$16,755.68
$43,980.68
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall make any submissions regarding the
Remaining Plaintiffs’ eligibility to recover consistent with Section IV of this opinion by May 2,
2016. Should the Remaining Plaintiffs choose to submit any additional evidence in response, they
must do so by June 1, 2016. The Court will then issue a final judgment with respect to the
Remaining Plaintiffs thereafter. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs indicate their intention to
move for costs and attorneys’ fees in the future by separate memorandum. (Doc. No. 231 at 24–
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?