Garcia et. al. v. Frensco Building Products Corp., and Frensco Inc, and Daniel Phua individually Docket No.: 22-cv-3358

New Action filed in the United States Eastern District of New York

Garcia et. al. v. Frensco Building Products Corp., and Frensco Inc, and Daniel Phua individually Docket No.: 22-cv-3358

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Garcia, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, (collectively as “FLSA Plaintiffs,” as this term is defined below), by and through his attorneys, BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., as and for his Complaint against FRENSCO BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP. (“Frensco Building”), and Frensco Inc. (“Frensco”), and DANIEL PHUA, individually, (all three, together were 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:

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant – – two New York corporations that operate as a single enterprise to run a New York City-based company that is a wholesale distributor of building materials, and the enterprise’s owner and day-to day overseer – – as a forklift driver and laborer, from July 7, 2011, through November 2, 2021, at Defendants’ Queens and Brooklyn locations. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, but as is relevant herein, for the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action, plus an additional 228 days pursuant to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s executive tolling orders, through the end of Plaintiff’s employment (“the Relevant Period”),- -Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime and minimum wage required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), and further failed to comply with the NYLL’s frequency of pay provisions as applicable to manual workers. Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours per week, yet Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary for all hours that he worked, which from the beginning of the Relevant Period until mid-March 2020, fell below to New York City minimum wage rate when computed on an hourly basis, and which did not include overtime premiums at the statutorily- required rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage, when greater, for any hours that Plaintiff worked over forty in a week. Additionally, Defendant violated the NYLL and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. (-by failing to provide Plaintiff with a spread-of-hours premium of one hour’s pay at the minimum wage on those days when Plaintiff’s shift exceeded ten hours from beginning to end from the beginning of the Relevant Period until mid-March 2020; and by failing to provide Plaintiff with any wage statement on each payday, let alone an accurate notice or statement.

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.