Law Blog

4 minutes reading time (752 words)

Camilo and Mejia v. Parrilla Latina Restaurant, Inc., Et al. Civil Case No.: 18-cv-09163

TacosNew Class and Collective Action filed in the Southern District of New York
Camilo and Mejia v. Parrilla Latina Restaurant, Inc., and 2501 Webster Restaurant Corp., and Ysidro Ramirez, individually, and Tomasa Izaquirre, individually

Civil Case No.: 18-cv-09163

On October 5, 2018, Plaintiffs, Mr. Camilo and Mr. Mejia, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, filed a class and collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against PARRILLA LATINA RESTAURANT, INC. (“Parrilla Latina”) and 2501 WEBSTER RESTAURANT CORP. (“2501 Webster”, and together with Parrilla Latina as “the Restaurant”), and YSIDRO RAMIREZ, individually, and TOMASA IZQUIRRE, individually, (together with the Restaurant as “Defendants), alleging upon knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and upon information and belief as follows:

Mr. Camilo and Mr. Mejia worked for Defendants - - two corporate entities that consecutively operated a single restaurant in the Bronx, as well as the entities’ owners and day-to-day overseers. In 2005, Defendant Ramirez, on behalf of Parrilla Latina, hired Plaintiff Camilo to work at the restaurant as a cashier and Plaintiff Camilo commenced her employment at the restaurant in that role at that time and continuously worked in that role until July 16, 2017. In or around 2013, Defendant Izaquirre bought Parrilla Latina from Defendant Ramirez. After selling the restaurant, Defendant Ramirez continued to work there as a day-to-day manager and to personally oversee all day-to-day activities of its employees. In or around 2013, following the sale of Parrilla Latina, Defendant Izaquirre reincorporated the entity and renamed it 2501 Webster Restaurant Corp. In or around May 2014, Defendant Ramirez hired Plaintiff Mejia to work for 2501 Webster as a cook and Plaintiff Mejia commenced his employment with 2501 Webster in that role at that time and continuously worked in that role until July 2017. Thus, as described below and as is relevant herein, from October 5, 2012 through the date of commencement of this action (“Relevant Time Period”), Defendants required Plaintiff Camilo to work five or six days per week, starting her workday between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. and working until approximately 12:30 a.m., without permitting her to take scheduled or uninterrupted breaks. By approximation, throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendants required Plaintiff Camilo to work, and Plaintiff Camilo did routinely work, between fifty-two and one-half and sixty-nine hours per week. Throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff Mejia to work six or seven days per week. On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday, Plaintiff Mejia started his workday at approximately 3:00 p.m. and worked until approximately 12:00 a.m., without scheduled or uninterrupted breaks. On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, Plaintiff Mejia started his workday at approximately 7:00 a.m. and worked until approximately 4:00 p.m., although on many instances he would work a double shift until around midnight, without scheduled or uninterrupted breaks. By approximation, throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff Mejia to work, and Plaintiff Mejia did routinely work, between fifty-six and sixty-three hours per week.
Throughout Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the overtime provisions lawfully due to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. (“NYCRR”). Even though Defendants required Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did in fact work beyond forty hours in a workweek but failed to compensate Plaintiffs at the statutorily-required overtime rate of time and one-half his straight-time rate of pay for any hours that he worked per week in excess of forty, and instead paid Plaintiffs at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. Additionally, in violation of NYLL and NYCRR, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at least at the minimum wage rate for any hours worked; provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday; or provide Plaintiffs with any wage notice at hire, let alone an accurate one.

Defendants paid and treated all non-managerial workers in this same manner. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated who suffered damages because of Defendants’ willful violations of the law.

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.

Conditional Certification of Collective Action - D...
Paid Time Off (PTO) Changes in New York Could Be o...

Related Posts

910 Franklin Avenue
Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: 516-248-5550
Fax: 516-248-6027

655 Third Avenue
Suite 1821
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212-679-5000
Fax: 212-679-5005