18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

260 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition any defense to that claim. Id . at *62. Regardless, the Court determined that the record clearly established that Beckerman was an employer for purposes of the FLSA and, thus, it granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to hold Beckerman individually liable under the FLSA. However, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to satisfied their burden of showing that there were no genuine disputes of material fact regarding the extent and degree to which Ayala exercised operational control of employment of Plaintiffs. Id . at *64-65. The Court held that although Ayala was the Chief Executive Officer and sole owner of Defendant, had functional control over the enterprise and represented herself on the company’s tax returns, there were no allegations or evidence that showed that she supervised or controlled work schedules or other personnel decisions, was personally aware of Plaintiffs’ hours or other conditions of employment, determined Plaintiffs’ rates and methods of payment, or was actively involved in maintaining employment records. Id . at *65. The Court opined that the record demonstrated that Beckerman was the individual who managed the company’s overall daily operations, and made decisions regarding the hiring, termination, pay rates, work assignments and schedules of employees. Id . Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had not established as a matter of law that Ayala had "operational control" of the company’s employment of Plaintiffs, as opposed to simply operational control of the company, i.e. , that she exercised sufficient management, supervision and oversight of the employment practices so as to qualify as an "employer" within the meaning of the FLSA. Id . at *66. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Ayala and Beckerman’s executive liability Dent, et al. v. Mark Gregory Roofing Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47811 (E.D.N.C. March 15, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of sheet metal workers and roofers, filed a class and collective action claiming that Defendant Mark Gregory Roofing Company and its president, Defendant Mark Gregory, failed to pay overtime compensation and all wages earned under the FLSA and the North Caroline Wage & Hour Act (“NCWHA”). Id. at *1-2. The claims focused on Plaintiffs’ handwritten timesheets, which were manually adjusted by Defendants to account for bad weather days and other alterations to Plaintiffs’ hours worked. Both parties filed partial motions for summary judgment concerning various issues, including: (i) Plaintiffs’ claim for improper lunch deductions; (ii) Defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence; (iii) Defendant Gregory’s employer status; (iv) Defendants’ liability under the FLSA; and (v) Defendants’ liability under the NCWHA. The Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions. In terms of the improper lunch deductions claim, Defendants pointed out that Plaintiffs failed to include this claim in their complaint and that they did not obtain Defendants’ consent to amend the complaint. Since jurisdictional case law maintained that a Plaintiff “must plead each theory of recovery it seeks to pursue under the FLSA,” the Court granted Defendants’ motion on this claim. Id. at *9-10. Plaintiffs also sought sanctions against Defendants on the grounds that Defendants burned Plaintiffs’ paper timesheets after the commencement of the case. While Defendants admitted burning the timesheets, they offered testimony stating that the timesheets were burned before this action was filed, thus creating a genuine dispute of fact regarding spoliation. With respect to Defendant Gregory’s status as an employer, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that Defendant Gregory exerted significant operational control over the business. Specifically, the Court referenced Defendant Gregory’s history of hiring and firing employees, controlling schedules, supervising employees, implementing employment policies, and reviewing employee timesheets. Id. at *15-16. Regarding Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, Defendants offered paystubs showing that they paid Plaintiffs overtime wages on dozens of occasions, while Plaintiffs offered testimony concerning situations in which Defendants allegedly adjusted timesheets to avoid paying overtime wages. In light of this dispute, the Court reasoned that Defendants’ FLSA liability was an issue to be resolved by a jury. Finally, since Defendants admitted that certain payments to Plaintiff Hamilton were issued late, the Court held Defendants to be at least partially liable under the NCWHA. In sum, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment as to Defendant Gregory’s employer status and Defendants’ NCWHA liability to Plaintiff Hamilton, and granted Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ improper lunch deductions claim. The Court denied the parties’ motions as to all other claims. Olsen, et al. v. Ratner Co. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44735 (D.N.J. March 10, 2021). Plaintiffs, two hair stylists at a hair salon, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants violated various state and federal wage & hour laws in connection with the salon’s shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs specifically contended that when the salon was shut down due to the pandemic, they were not paid for all wages owed. Defendant Phil Horvath was the President and COO of Ratner Co. and Defendant Dennis Ratner was the founder and CEO of Ratner Co. Horvath and Ratner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacked