Spencer v. No Parking Today – Case Status
- Posted on: Jan 22 2018
On August 17, 2012, Darrell Spencer filed a putative class and collective action Complaint against No Parking Today, Inc. and Clayton Thomas in the U.S. District Court South
On August 17, 2012, Darrell Spencer Filed A Putative Class And Collective Action Complaint Against No Parking Today, Inc. And Clayton Thomas In The U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York, Which Is Assigned Case Number 1:12-Cv-6323.
Scope of class and collective action members:
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals whom Defendants employ or have employed as parking assistants since August 13, 2006.
Claims in the lawsuit:
The lawsuit alleges the following causes of action on behalf of the class and collective action members.
- Failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). These claims are based on the allegations in the Complaint that Defendants paid the parking assistants a maximum of eighty (80) hours for every two-week period; Defendants would allocate any hour the Class Members worked above eighty (80) to the following two-week pay period; and Defendants paid them straight time for all eighty (80) hours – even when they worked more than forty (40) hours in a week. Defendants therefore did not pay them for every hour they worked per week, violating the FLSA and NYLL. These two claims seek to recover the unpaid compensation.
- Recordkeeping violations under the NYLL. This claim alleges that Defendants failed to provide the class action members with a Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday, as required by NYLL § 195. The Complaint therefore seeks to recover for the class members a civil penalty of $50.00 for each workweek that this violation occurred, with a maximum of $2,500.00 per class member.
- Unlawful deductions under the NYLL. This claim alleges that Defendants failed to reimburse the class members for their business-related expenses and deducted from their wages the cost of replacing cones.
- On February 20, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, under which the claims were settled for $450,000. Under the agreement, the settlement amounts were scheduled to be paid every quarter and individuals were to be paid based on the order in which they submitted the claim form. Defendants, however, failed to make the February 2017 payment and have stopped making any additional payments.
- The Court has consequently entered a default judgment against the Defendants in the amount of $475,000. Class counsel is actively attempting to recover the remaining amounts from Defendants.
*This update is current as of January 21, 2018.