Law Blog

4 minutes reading time (736 words)

Camilo v. Parrilla Latina Restaurant, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-09163(JPO)

44591742Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the Southern District of New York

Camilo v. Parrilla Latina Restaurant, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-09163(JPO)

As previously reported on this website, in Camilo v. Parrilla Latina Restaurant, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-09163, on October 5, 2018, Plaintiff Camilo, 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 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 IZAGUIRRE, individually, and YVETTE IZAGUIRRE, individually, (the three individuals, collectively with the Restaurant, as “Defendants”), alleging deliberating violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), including the failure of Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for overtime wages. The claims of the case are referenced in our April 2019 blog post and are reviewed as follows:

  • Plaintiff worked for Defendants - - two corporate entities that consecutively operated a single restaurant in the Bronx, as well as the entities’ three owners and day-to-day overseers - - as a cashier, from 2005 to July 16, 2017. As described below, throughout her employment, but as is relevant herein, for at least the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action (“the Relevant Time Period”);
  • On or around March 15, 2015, Defendant Ivette Izaguirre entered into a Contract of Sale to purchase Parrilla Latina from Defendant Ramirez for $195,000.00;
  • On or around March 15, 2015, Defendant Ivette Izaguirre filed a Certificate of Assumed Name and Certificate of Incorporation for 2501 Webster Restaurant Corp., designating herself as “President” of 2501 Webster;
  • 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;
  • Even though Defendants hired Plaintiff Camilo to work as a cashier, throughout the Relevant Time Period, her main duties consisted of not only checking out customer orders at the register and counting money at the register at the end of her shift, but also taking food orders, answering the phone at the bar, serving food, and waiting tables;
  • Throughout at least the 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.
  • For her work, Defendants paid Plaintiff Camilo at the flat rate of $60.00 per day, regardless of the amount of hours that Plaintiff Camilo worked in a day or in a week.

Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, but Defendants failed to compensate her at the statutorily required overtime rate for any hours that she worked in a week in excess of forty. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat daily wage that operated to cover only the first forty hours that she worked per week, and thus, Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times her respective regular rates of pay, for all hours that she worked in excess of forty each week, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.

Certification of Collective Action

In this case, pursuant to the request of the Plaintiff, the Judge reviewed claims that the Plaintiff brought forward alleging that there are additional workers in the same "class" (performing the same or similar duties) whose rights have been violated. After reviewing the facts of this case, on May 30, 2019, the Honorable Judge Paul Oetken granted "conditional certification" allowing the case to proceed as a collective action enabling any current and former employees who were not paid properly to join the lawsuit and seek redress for Defendants’ failure to compensate them in accordance with the law.

If you or a person you know worked for the Defendants named in the lawsuit during the time period of October 5, 2012 - present or has information that may be relevant to this case, contact Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as soon as possible through one of our websites, www.employmentlawyernewyork.com, www.516abogado.com or by phone: (516) 248-5550, (516) ABOGADO, and (212) 679-5000.

Court Authorized Notice and Opt-In English

Court Authorized Notice and Opt-In Spanish

 

What You Need to Know about New York City’s Earned...
Appellate Division Denies Oscar De La Renta Appeal

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