Ramirez, Cuautle, and Almonte v. 1701 Pizza LTD. d/b/a Luigi’s Pizza, and Salvatore Romano, individually, and Luigi Romano, individually, Docket No.:21-cv-00792
On January 28, 2021, Plaintiffs Ramirez, Cuautle, and Almonte filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against 1701 PIZZA LTD, d/b/a LUIGI’S PIZZA, (“Luigi’s Pizza”), SALVATORE ROMANO, individually (“Salvatore”), and LUIGI ROMANO, individually (“Luigi”, all three, 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:
Defendants are a New York corporation that operates a Manhattan pizzeria/restaurant and its two owners and day-to-day overseers. Plaintiffs all worked for Defendants in the position of counter person, Ramirez from on or about November 5, 2011 until July 30, 2019, Cuautle from on or about October 29, 2011 until July 30, 2019, and Almonte from in or around October 2013 until in or around late-April 2019. As described below, throughout their employment, but as is relevant herein, for the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action plus any applicable tolling period through the respective ends of their employment (“the Relevant Time Period”), Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the overtime wages lawfully due to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Specifically, throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendants required Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week, but from the beginning of the Relevant Period until on or about April 30, 2018, Defendants paid Ramirez and Cuautle a flat weekly salary that by operation of law compensated them for only their first forty hours worked in a week, and paid Almonte at a regular hourly rate for all hours worked in a week. Thereafter, from in or around May 2018 until the respective ends of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants paid Plaintiffs on an hourly basis for their hours worked up to forty, and at Defendant’s whim, paid Plaintiffs at their statutorily-required overtime rates for some, but not all, of the hours they worked in excess of forty in a week, and nothing, let alone their statutorily-required overtime rates, for the additional hours that Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty in a week.
Additionally, during the Relevant Time Period, for those days when Plaintiff’s shifts exceeded ten hours from beginning to end, which was almost every workday, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs with an additional one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate, in violation of the spread of hours provisions of the NYLL and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. (“NYCRR”). Furthermore, throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires. Defendants paid and treated all of their non-managerial employees in the same manner.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions 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 brought their claims under the NYLL and its supporting regulations on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Plaintiff, as that term is defined below, who opts-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.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently faced a significant legal setback as a federal…
If you’ve been offered a severance agreement, chances are you’re dealing with a challenging situation.…
May 2024 Valdez et al. v. Michpat & Fam, LLC d/b/a Dairy Queen Grill &…
New Action filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York On…
Workers’ compensation is designed to protect employees who are injured on the job. It provides…
January 2024 Hiciano et al. v. Joyeria Elizabeth I, Corp., et al. Docket No: 21-cv-4508…