Law Blog

4 minutes reading time (747 words)

Gray v. Mid-Bronx CCRP Early Childhood Center Inc., and Mid-Bronx Community Council, Inc., d/b/a Mid-Bronx Council, and Mid-Bronx Senior Citizens Council, and Concourse Area Housing Corp., and Walter E. Puryear, III, individually Civil Case No.: 1:18-cv-07934

Early Childhood Learning CenterNew Class and Collective Action filed in the Southern District of New York
Gray v. Mid-Bronx CCRP Early Childhood Center Inc., and Mid-Bronx Community Council, Inc., d/b/a Mid-Bronx Council, and Mid-Bronx Senior Citizens Council, and Concourse Area Housing Corp., and Walter E. Puryear, III, individually Civil Case No.: 1:18-cv-07934

On August 30, 2018, lead Plaintiff Ms. Gray, on behalf of herself, 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 MID-BRONX CCRP EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER, INC., (“Childhood Center”), and MID-BRONX COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC., d/b/a MID-BRONX COUNCIL, (“Mid-Bronx Council”), and MID-BRONX COUNCIL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a MID-BRONX SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL, (“Senior Citizens Council”), and CONCOURSE AREA HOUSING CORP., (“Housing Corp.”), (these four, together where appropriate, as “the Corporate Defendants”), and WALTER E. PURYEAR, III, (“Puryear”), individually, (all five, together where appropriate, as “Defendants”). The allegations are as follows:

Ms. Gray worked for Defendants – four nominally distinct entities that in reality operate as a single enterprise providing community services to senior citizens and other low-income residents of the Bronx, which includes operating a day care center, an event space for rental, GED programs, a food pantry, transportation services, and a Meals-on-Wheels program. Around October 1, 2012, Plaintiff commenced her employment for Defendants as a manual worker, providing “day care” work during daytime hours at 1125 Grand Concourse, and “attendant” work for events at night at 900 Grand Concourse, with each facility located about a fifteen-minute walk from the other. As a “day care worker,” Plaintiff’s primary duties involved taking care of children at the day care, including cooking for the children and cleaning the space where the children congregated. As an event space “attendant,” Plaintiff’s primary duties included cleaning, cooking food, delivering food, setting up tables for events, and serving food and drinks for events, such as weddings and parties. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff worked at the day care center from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, for approximately forty hours per week. Immediately following her day care shifts, Plaintiff walked down the street to set up for and work through events for Defendants at Defendants’ event space. For the first six months of her employment, Plaintiff intermittently worked at Defendants’ event-space on an as-needed basis. Thereafter, around March of 2013, and continuing until the end of her employment, Plaintiff worked at the event space from approximately 4:15 p.m. until typically 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays, and from 4:15 p.m. until as late as 4:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, for a total of approximately forty-six and one-half hours per week. For her work, Plaintiff received multiple paychecks in a bi-weekly pay period from the Corporate Defendants’ different individual entities, with each check being for no more than forty hours of work per week, for which Defendants paid Plaintiff at no more than her straight-time rate.

Even though Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work an average of eighty-six and one-half hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times her straight-time rate for any hours that Plaintiff worked over forty in a workweek, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed to her by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and in the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs (“NYCCRR”). In further violation of NYLL, on each occasion when Defndants paid Plaintiff, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage statement that accurately listed, her overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over forty each week. Additionally, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any wage notice upon her hire, let alone one that accurately contained, Plaintiff’s overtime rate of pay as designated by the employer.

Defendants paid and treated all non-managerial day care workers and/or event space attendants in this same manner. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, on behalf of himself 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 during the time period of October 1, 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 or by phone: (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, or (212) 679–5000.

Can Your Boss Retaliate Against You for Standing U...
New York City and State Minimum Wage to Increase

Related Posts

Logo

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