General Employment Law

Rodriguez v. Real Photo by Freddy’s Colors Inc. d/b/a Real Photos NYC, and Freddy Alcantara, individually, and Johanathan Julian, individually; Index No.:1:26-04178

Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the United States District Court Southern District of New York

Plaintiff, Rodriguez on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court District Southern District of New York against Real Photo by Freddy’s Colors Inc. d/b/a Real Photos NYC, and Freddy Alcantara, individually, and Johanathan Julian, individually, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”),  and the New York Codes Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”),  including the failure of Defendants to compensate Plaintiff for overtime wages. Prior post upon action commencement located here: https://www.employmentlawyernewyork.com/news/latest/rodriguez-v-real-photo-by-freddys-colors-inc-d-b-a-real-photos-nyc-and-freddy-alcantara-individually-and-johanathan-julian-individually-index-no-126-04178.html  The claims of the case are as follows:

  • Plaintiff worked for Defendants – – a New York corporation that operates as a Manhattan-based school photography and photo studio business and the corporation’s owner and day-to-day overseer – – as a non-managerial photographer.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants beginning in or around October 2021 until in or around mid-September 2025 but was furloughed each year from mid-July through August because of Defendants’ work primarily involving school photography.
  • Specifically, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week, throughout his employment. Yet, in exchange for his work from the beginning of his employment through September 2022, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that failed to compensate him at least at the applicable minimum wage rate for each hour worked, and failed to compensate him at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or the minimum wage, if greater, for the hours that he worked each week in excess of forty each week.
  • Additionally, from October 2022 through the end of his employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff at a flat hourly rate for each of his hours worked, and thus, failed to compensate him at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours that he worked each week in excess of forty each week.
  • Moreover, Defendants further violated the NYLL and/or 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 rate for those days when Plaintiff’s shift exceeded ten hours from beginning to end from the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment through June 2022.
  • Defendants paid and treated all their non-managerial employees in the same manner.

Defendants violated Plaintiff rights guaranteed to them by the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the NYLL and the NYCRR.  Additionally, Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to provide Plaintiff with any wage notice upon hire or throughout the relevant period; and provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday.

Certification of Collective Action

In this case, pursuant to the request of the Plaintiffs, the Judge reviewed claims that the Plaintiffs brought forward alleging that there are additional workers in the same “class” (performing the same or similar duties) whose rights have been violated.  On September 29, 2026, the Court ordered the approval of a collective action 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 May 2020 – 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 any of our phone numbers: (516) 248-5550, (516) ABOGADO, and (212) 679-5000.

Published by
Borrelli & Associates

Recent Posts

Castro v. Taier New York Inc., and Weiye Li a/k/a Guo Xiang Li, individually, and Hanson Wong a/k/a Yudi Wang, individually, Docket No.: 1:26-cv-01532

Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the United States District Court Eastern District…

2 weeks ago

$180,000.00 – Sexual Harassment, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation

August 2026 Firm represented a female employee against her former employer for sexual harassment, gender…

2 weeks ago

Top Questions to Ask Before Hiring an Employment Lawyer in NYC

Choosing an employment lawyer is a decision that deserves some thought. If you are dealing…

3 weeks ago

Obaoye v. Metro Care Management LLC d/b/a Essen Health Care, Docket No.: 1:25-cv-4920-MKV

Judge grants Conditional Certification of Collective Action in the United States District Court Southern District…

3 weeks ago

What Are Your Rights After a Workplace Injury or Unsafe Conditions in New York?

Getting hurt at work can be frightening enough without worrying about your job, your paycheck,…

3 weeks ago

$150,000.00 – Race, Sex, Age and Religious Discrimination & Retaliation

April 2026 Nance v. The City of New York, et al. Docket No: 24-CV-08228 Firm…

4 weeks ago