Law Blog

2 minutes reading time (451 words)

Cocco v. Stratas Foods LLC, d/b/a Admiration Foods, et al. Civil Case No.: 19-15979 (KM)

37551368New Action filed in the District of New Jersey

Cocco v. Stratas Foods LLC, d/b/a Admiration Foods, et al. Civil Case No.: 19-15979 (KM)

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff Cocco filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against STRATAS FOODS LLC, d/b/a ADMIRATION FOODS (“Admiration”), and ROBINSON PEREZ, individually (“Perez”), (together, where appropriate, as “Defendants”), alleging upon knowledge as to himself and his own actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters as follows:

Plaintiff worked for Defendants - - a Delaware limited liability company engaged in the production and distribution of cooking products in New Jersey and its former plant supervisor - - as a non-exempt “supervisor,” a managerial position in name only, and he brings this action for unpaid and untimely paid overtime wages. Indeed, despite the clear non-exempt nature of his duties, for at least the six-year period pre-dating this action’s commencement through September 2017, at which point Defendants changed their pay practices (“the Relevant Period”), Defendants intentionally misclassified Plaintiff as exempt, and as a result, willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the full payment provisions of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Specifically, throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, between forty-two and one-half and sixty-eight and one-half hours per week while paying him a flat weekly salary regardless of the number of hours that he worked in a week, and thus intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty. During the Relevant Period, in exchange for his work, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat salary of $800.00 per week, regardless of the number of hours that he worked in a week, and which thus operated to cover only the first forty hours that Plaintiff worked in a week. Thus, during the Relevant Period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in a week in excess of forty.

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 by phone (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, and (212) 679–5000.

Diaz v. KC Plumbing, LLC, and Kolbe Coto-Cruz, ind...
New York’s Top 5 Wage and Hour Violations and What...

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