New York Employment Law Case News

Hernandez and Nunez, v. 23 North Park Avenue Pub Inc., d/b/a Kasey’s Kitchen & Cocktails, and 44 Tap House Inc., d/b/a Craft Kitchen & Taphouse, and Anthony Geraci, individually, and Thomas McNicholas, individually, and Daniel Quinn, individually, and Mannase Suazo, individually, and Thomas Garrett, individually, Civil Case No.:21-cv-3214

New Action filed in the Eastern District of New York

Hernandez and Nunez, v. 23 North Park Avenue Pub Inc., d/b/a Kasey’s Kitchen & Cocktails, and 44 Tap House Inc., d/b/a Craft Kitchen & Taphouse, and Anthony Geraci, individually, and Thomas McNicholas, individually, and Daniel Quinn, individually, and Mannase Suazo, individually, and Thomas Garrett, individually, Civil Case No.:21-cv-3214

 On June 7, 2021, Plaintiffs Hernandez and Nunez filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against 23 NORTH PARK AVENUE PUB INC., d/b/a KASEY’s KITCHEN & COCKTAILS (“Kasey’s Kitchen), and 44 TAP HOUSE INC., d/b/a CRAFT KITCHEN & TAPHOUSE (“Craft”), and ANTHONY GERACI, individually, and THOMAS MCNICHOLAS, individually, and DANIEL QUINN, individually, and MANNASE SUAZO, individually, and THOMAS GARRETT, individually, (all seven, together where appropriate, as “Defendants”), alleging upon knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

Plaintiff Hernandez and Nunez worked for Defendants – – two corporations that operate as a single enterprise to run three Nassau County-based restaurants/bars and the enterprise’s three owners and two general managers, all of whom are responsible for making significant personal-related decisions- – – interchangeably, collectively at all three locations, respectively as a kitchen cook and dishwasher from July 8, 2019 to December 8, 2020, and as a bartender/barback from October 22, 2014 through November 21, 2020.  As described below, throughout their employment – – all of which falls within the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action, plus any applicable tolling period pursuant to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s Executive Orders – – Defendants routinely required Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did work, in excess of forty hours per week, but Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at the statutorily required overtime rate for those hours.  With respect to Hernandez, Defendants paid him on an hourly basis at his regular rate of pay for all hours worked, even those over forty in a week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law’s (NYLL”) overtime provisions.  As to Nunez, Defendants also paid him on an hourly basis at his regular rate of pay for all hours worked, even those over forty in a week, and classified him as a tipped employee while requiring him to perform non-tipped work more than twenty percent of the time.  In doing so, Defendants failed to pay Nunez at least at the NYLL’s non-tipped minimum wage for all hours worked, or at the FLSA’s or the NYLL’s overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the non-tipped minimum wage rate, whichever was greater, for all hours worked over forty in a week.  Defendants further violated the NYLL and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R & Regs (“NYCRR”) by failing to: pay Plaintiffs one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate for each day when Plaintiff’s shift exceeded ten hours from beginning to end; provide Plaintiffs with an accurate wage notice at the time of their hire; and provide Plaintiffs with an accurate wage statement on each payday.

Defendants paid and treated all of their non-managerial back of the house and front of the house employees, respectively, in the same manner.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of themselves, 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.  Plaintiffs also brought their claims under the NYLL and the NYCRR on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Plaintiff, as that term is defined below, who opt-into this action.

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.

Published by
Borrelli & Associates

Recent Posts

Overtime Draft

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently faced a significant legal setback as a federal…

1 day ago

When Not to Sign a Severance Agreement

If you’ve been offered a severance agreement, chances are you’re dealing with a challenging situation.…

1 day ago

Firm Secures Judgment in the amount of $150,000.00 – Wage & Hour Violations

May 2024 Valdez et al. v. Michpat & Fam, LLC d/b/a Dairy Queen Grill &…

3 days ago

Nance v. The City of New York; Index No.:24-cv-8228

New Action filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York On…

5 days ago

Can You Be Terminated While on Workers’ Compensation

Workers’ compensation is designed to protect employees who are injured on the job. It provides…

4 weeks ago

Firm Secures Judgment in the amount of $150,000.00 – Wage & Hour Violations

January 2024 Hiciano et al. v. Joyeria Elizabeth I, Corp., et al. Docket No: 21-cv-4508…

4 weeks ago