COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients. Click for More Information.

Articles Tagged with wage theft prevention act

Long Island employment lawyers, Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, represented a Long Island limousine company accused in a class action lawsuit of not paying its employees’ tips and overtime.  On September 15, 2017, a Nassau County Supreme Court justice granted F&W’s motion to dismiss the case.  The situation is discussed below.

F&W’s client operates a limousine company. According to the plaintiff in the case, he alleged that the company did not pay its drivers proper overtime for the hours he, and other employees, worked over 40 in a week.  The plaintiff further alleged that the company collected gratuities from its customers and told the customers that the tips would be given to the drivers, but that the company then kept the tips, instead of paying them to the drivers.  Additionally, the plaintiff alleged his pay stubs did not meet the requirements of the New York Labor Law’s Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA).  The plaintiff attempted to bring his claims as a class action, on behalf of himself and all of the limousine company’s drivers.

F&W partner and Long Island employment lawyer Matt Weinick filed a motion on behalf of the limousine company seeking to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.  Among other things, Weinick argued that the plaintiff’s last pay stub proved he was paid properly, that the overtime claim was otherwise not sufficiently stated and supported by facts in the complaint, that the allegations relating to the tip issue were not sufficiently stated in the complaint, and that since those claims failed, the wage statement claim was also required to be dismissed under the law.

In October 2015, Long Island employment lawyers, Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that a Long Island gas station did not pay their client overtime for the 35 hours per week that he worked overtime.  The firm also alleged that the gas station did not provide the client proper notice about his wages or proper wage statements when he was paid.  On August 30, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields recommended to District Judge Spatt, that he order the gas station to pay $30,380 in damages, and $12,370 to F&W, for their work on the case.

Judge Recommends Answer Be Stricken and Default Entered

In the gas station case, F&W filed a lawsuit to which the defendants appeared in and submitted a response, called an answer.  However, in the course of the lawsuit, the defendants or their lawyer failed to obey court orders, failed to respond to motions, and failed to participate in the discovery process.  Further, after F&W filed an “amended complaint,” which sought to add a defendant, the defendants failed to respond to the amended complaint by submitting an answer.  Magistrate Judge Shields recommended that the defendants’ existing answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against all the defendants because of their exhibited “willful” failure to defend themselves in the lawsuit.

Contact Information