Perez v. Four Seasons Temp Control, Inc., and Asher Putter, individually Civil Case No.: 18-cv-5918

New Collective Action filed in the Eastern District of New York

Perez v. Four Seasons Temp Control, Inc., and Asher Putter, individually Civil Case No.: 18-cv-5918

On October 23, 2018, Mr. Perez (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, filed a collective action lawsuit against FOUR SEASONS TEMP CONTROL, INC. (“Four Seasons”), and ASHER PUTTER (“Putter”), individually, (together, where appropriate, as “Defendants”). The complaint alleges as follows:

Defendant Four Seasons is a company that installs heating and air conditioning systems in commercial and residential buildings throughout New York City, Long Island, and the surrounding areas. Defendant Putter runs the business on a day-to-day basis and oversees and supervises all its employees. To that end, Putter hired Plaintiff, approved the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, set Plaintiff’s work schedule and rate of pay, paid Plaintiff, and distributed to Plaintiff his job assignments. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a mechanic from in or around August 2004 to on or about March 26, 2018. Throughout his employment, and as relevant to this Complaint, within the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action (“the relevant period”), Plaintiff’s primary duties consisted of installing air conditioning/heating systems and air vents at commercial and residential buildings in New York and creating installation blueprints for those systems. Throughout the relevant period, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day. Additionally, at least twice a month, Defendants also required Plaintiff to work either Saturday or Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and sometimes on both days if Plaintiff was working on a complex project. During each shift, Plaintiff was scheduled to receive a thirty-minute meal break, but that break was interrupted at least two or three times per month. Moreover, in addition to his regularly scheduled work hours, Defendants required Plaintiff to perform off-the-clock work each night. Specifically, each night Defendants required Plaintiff to draft, and Plaintiff did draft, installation blueprints for the heating and air conditioning systems that the company used for the following day’s project. Indeed, Defendants required Plaintiff to perform this work approximately five times each week, for two hours each day, totaling an additional ten hours of work each week in addition to his regular work hours. However, throughout the entirety of the relevant period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, which was $45 per hour, for any hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty in a week. Rather, from the beginning of the relevant period through December 2016, Defendants, at their whim, paid Plaintiff at either the rate of time and one-quarter his regular rate, which was $37.50 per hour, or solely at his regular rate for those hours that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty. Then from January 2017 until the end of his employment on or about March 26, 2018, Defendants only paid Plaintiff at his regular rate of pay for all hours that Plaintiff worked in a week over forty. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, an hourly employee, all of the wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Specifically, during that time, Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, but Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff, at their whim, either at Plaintiff’s straight-time rate or at the rate of one and one-quarter of his straight time rate for those hours that Plaintiff worked each week over forty. Moreover, Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday as the NYLL requires, as the statements that Defendants provided to Plaintiff did not reflect all of Plaintiff’s hours worked per week or his lawful overtime rate of pay for all hours worked per week over forty.

If any individual is or has previously been an employee of the Defendants named in the lawsuit during the time period of October 23, 2012 – present, and/or has information that may be relevant to this case, please contact Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as soon as possible via our website or by phone at (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, or (212) 679–5000.