Diaz v. KC Plumbing, LLC, and Kolbe Coto-Cruz, individually,Civil Case No.: 19-cv-04321-DLI-CLP

New Action filed in the Eastern District of New York

Diaz v. KC Plumbing, LLC, and Kolbe Coto-Cruz, individually, Civil Case No.: 19-cv-04321-DLI-CLP

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Diaz filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York against KC PLUMBING, LLC (“KC”), and KOLBE COTO-CRUZ, individually, (“Coto,” and together with KC, 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 Jamaica, New York plumbing company and its day-to-day manager and overseer – – as a plumber from in or around October 2016 until his termination on May 5, 2018.  In this role, Plaintiff’s primary duties consisted of installing and repairing plumbing at residential and commercial job sites located primarily in Manhattan, Long Island City, and Brooklyn.  Defendant Coto was and is the day-to-day manager and overseer of Defendant KC, who in that role was and is ultimately responsible for all matters with respect to determining employees’ rates and methods of pay, hours worked, and duties performed.  Furthermore, Defendant Coto had and exercised the power to hire and fire and approve all personnel decisions with respect to Defendant KC’s employees, including Plaintiff.  Indeed, in October 2016, Defendant Coto hired Plaintiff on behalf of KC, and Coto subsequently terminated Plaintiff’s employment on May 5, 2018, on behalf of KC as well. 

From the beginning of his employment through the end of December 2017, Plaintiff worked Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an uninterrupted thirty-minute break during each of his shifts.  Additionally, at the end of each of Plaintiff’s shifts, Defendant Coto required Plaintiff to drive the company van from the work site to Defendant Coto’s residence in Jamaica, New York.  Plaintiff would typically arrive at Defendant Coto’s residence at 6:30 p.m.  Further, approximately six times each month, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, a night shift until approximately 10:30 p.m., with an additional uninterrupted thirty-minute break.  Accordingly, from the beginning of his employment until the end of December 2017, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, between sixty-six and seventy hours and thirty minutes per week. 

Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week, but Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in a week in excess of forty.  Instead, from October 2016 until December 2017, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his regular rate of pay for most of his hours of work in a week, including those hours that he worked in a week in excess of forty, and nothing for approximately nine hours of work each week that were all in excess of forty.  Then from January 2018 until the end of his employment on May 5, 2018, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his regular rate of pay for his first forty hours worked, and paid him nothing for any hours that he worked in a week in excess of forty. 

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.