New Action filed in the Southern District of New York
Taveras v. Audry Mini-Market, Inc., and Santana Lantigua, individually, Civil Case No.: 20-cv-5080
On July 02, 2020, Plaintiff Taveras filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against AUDRY MINI-MARKET (“Audry”), and SANTANA LANTIGUA, individually (“Lantigua” and together with Audry, where appropriate, as “Defendants”), alleging upon knowledge as to himself and his own actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
Plaintiff worked for Defendants – – a corporation that operates as a delicatessen and grocer selling groceries and prepared food items in the Bronx, New York, and its owner, chief executive officer, and day-to-day overseer – – from on or about March 22, 2018 until on or about July 25, 2019, as a store clerk and deli counter worker. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Specifically, for the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours per week, but Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of at least one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, or one and one-half times his regular rate of pay when greater, for any hours that he worked each week in excess of forty. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff a weekly rate of $400.00, regardless of the total hours that Plaintiff worked in a week, which covered only Plaintiff’s first forty hours of work in a week, and thus Defendants paid Plaintiff nothing for the hours that he worked over forty hours. Additionally, Plaintiff’s hourly rate of pay fell below the minimum rate that either the FLSA or the NYLL require for each hour worked, resulting in minimum wage violations under both statues. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff an extra hour’s pay at the minimum wage for all days when his spread of hours worked exceeded ten and failed to provide Plaintiff with any wage statements on each payday or with any wage notice at the time of his hire, all in violation of the NYLL. Defendants paid and treated all of their employees in the same manner.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period who suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff also brought his claims under the NYLL on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Plaintiff, as that term is defined below, that opts-into this action.
Lastly, on an individual basis only, Plaintiff brings retaliation claims under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, after Plaintiff complained to Defendants on multiple occasions about not receiving overtime wages, Defendants retaliated by forcing Plaintiff to resign on the first occasion, and then subsequently terminating Plaintiff’s employment on the second occasion, only to rehire him a week later with the false promise of changing Defendant’s pay practices. Ultimately, after returning to work from the second termination, Plaintiff complained to Lantigua for a third and final time about Defendant’s pay practices, to which Lantigua responded by telling Plaintiff “that he could get the f*** out,” thereby terminating Plaintiff’s employment for a third and final time.
If any individual is or has previously been an employee of the Defendants named in the lawsuit and/or has information that may be relevant to this case, please contact Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as soon as possible through one of our websites, www.employmentlawyernewyork.com or www.516abogado.com, or any of our phone numbers: (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, or (212) 679–5000.