FLSA decision puts C-suite executives on guard
In Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, the 2nd Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that Catsimatidis was an employer within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and could be held jointly and severally liable for the department managers unpaid wage claims.
August 29, 2013 at 08:00 PM
11 minute read
As the owner, president and CEO of New York-based grocery chain Gristedes, John Catsimatidis didn't sit in an office far removed from the day-to-day operations of the approximately 30 stores his company owned. Rather, Catsimatidis, who is also a candidate for mayor of New York, visited all of the company's locations on a weekly basis to check on how they were being run. He regularly interacted with store managers, made sales strategy decisions, and even got involved with how products were being displayed in the store aisles.
In 2004, a class of department managers sued Gristedes, claiming that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay. Among the defendants named in the suit for back wages was Catsimatidis himself. Catsimatidis' intimate involvement with the day-to-day operations of the grocery stores he owned ultimately led to his personal assets being on the line in that lawsuit.
In Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, the 2nd Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that Catsimatidis was an “employer” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and could be held jointly and severally liable for the department managers' unpaid wage claims.
“Catsimatidis was not personally responsible for the FLSA violations that led to this lawsuit, but he nonetheless profited from them,” the court wrote. “Catsimatidis' actions and responsibilities—particularly as demonstrated by his active exercise of overall control over the company, his ultimate responsibility for the plaintiffs' wages, his supervision of managerial employees, and his actions in individual stores—demonstrate that he was an 'employer' for purposes of the FLSA.”
Broad Definition
The FLSA has broad, and somewhat circular, definitions of “employer” and “employ.” An employer is defined as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee” and “employ” is defined as “to suffer or permit to work.” Courts have interpreted these terms broadly to encompass as many potentially responsible parties as possible.
“The core issue is who has the power to ensure compliance with the Act,” says Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project. Gebreselassie wrote an amicus brief urging the court to find that Catsimatidis was an employer. “The statute's definition is incredibly broad.”
In determining whether a company executive should be considered an employer, courts have taken a number of factors into account, including whether the individual had authority to hire and fire employees—to set their pay, hours and conditions of employment—and to keep records. It's unusual for a CEO to be held liable under the act because most top executives do not exercise direct managerial authority over employees.
“The 2nd Circuit said the mere fact that a person has managerial status does not automatically give rise to liability,” says Christopher Kaczmarek, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson. “However, the court found that this particular CEO could be held liable because he was active at the store level.”
Fairness Factor
Underpinning the 2nd Circuit's decision in Irizarry was another factor that is not necessarily a feature of the FLSA itself. The plaintiffs' motion seeking a court ruling that Catsimatidis was an employer within the meaning of the FLSA arose under unusual circumstances. Gristedes had already agreed to settle the plaintiffs' claims and committed to making certain payments. A feature of that settlement agreement was that if the corporate defendants defaulted, the parties would go forward with a summary judgment motion aimed at settling the disputed question of whether Catsimatidis could be held personally liable.
Sure enough, Gristedes defaulted on the payments and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the question of Catsimatidis' status as an employer. If Catsimatidis wasn't on the hook, the aggrieved plaintiffs likely would never get their money.
“Many low-wage workers work for undercapitalized small businesses,” Gebreselassie says. “Even if they win their claims they may get nothing. Courts will ensure, if they can, that the employees can collect.”
While many plaintiffs already name executives as defendants in FLSA lawsuits, Irizarry is now another powerful arrow in their quiver. For a company seeking to shield its C-suite from personal liability in potential FLSA claims, there's no failsafe approach.
“Maintain traditional lines of managerial authority,” Kaczmarek advises. “Delegate authority to the lower-levels.”
As the owner, president and CEO of New York-based grocery chain Gristedes, John Catsimatidis didn't sit in an office far removed from the day-to-day operations of the approximately 30 stores his company owned. Rather, Catsimatidis, who is also a candidate for mayor of
In 2004, a class of department managers sued Gristedes, claiming that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay. Among the defendants named in the suit for back wages was Catsimatidis himself. Catsimatidis' intimate involvement with the day-to-day operations of the grocery stores he owned ultimately led to his personal assets being on the line in that lawsuit.
In Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, the 2nd Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that Catsimatidis was an “employer” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and could be held jointly and severally liable for the department managers' unpaid wage claims.
“Catsimatidis was not personally responsible for the FLSA violations that led to this lawsuit, but he nonetheless profited from them,” the court wrote. “Catsimatidis' actions and responsibilities—particularly as demonstrated by his active exercise of overall control over the company, his ultimate responsibility for the plaintiffs' wages, his supervision of managerial employees, and his actions in individual stores—demonstrate that he was an 'employer' for purposes of the FLSA.”
Broad Definition
The FLSA has broad, and somewhat circular, definitions of “employer” and “employ.” An employer is defined as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee” and “employ” is defined as “to suffer or permit to work.” Courts have interpreted these terms broadly to encompass as many potentially responsible parties as possible.
“The core issue is who has the power to ensure compliance with the Act,” says Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project. Gebreselassie wrote an amicus brief urging the court to find that Catsimatidis was an employer. “The statute's definition is incredibly broad.”
In determining whether a company executive should be considered an employer, courts have taken a number of factors into account, including whether the individual had authority to hire and fire employees—to set their pay, hours and conditions of employment—and to keep records. It's unusual for a CEO to be held liable under the act because most top executives do not exercise direct managerial authority over employees.
“The 2nd Circuit said the mere fact that a person has managerial status does not automatically give rise to liability,” says Christopher Kaczmarek, a shareholder at
Fairness Factor
Underpinning the 2nd Circuit's decision in Irizarry was another factor that is not necessarily a feature of the FLSA itself. The plaintiffs' motion seeking a court ruling that Catsimatidis was an employer within the meaning of the FLSA arose under unusual circumstances. Gristedes had already agreed to settle the plaintiffs' claims and committed to making certain payments. A feature of that settlement agreement was that if the corporate defendants defaulted, the parties would go forward with a summary judgment motion aimed at settling the disputed question of whether Catsimatidis could be held personally liable.
Sure enough, Gristedes defaulted on the payments and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the question of Catsimatidis' status as an employer. If Catsimatidis wasn't on the hook, the aggrieved plaintiffs likely would never get their money.
“Many low-wage workers work for undercapitalized small businesses,” Gebreselassie says. “Even if they win their claims they may get nothing. Courts will ensure, if they can, that the employees can collect.”
While many plaintiffs already name executives as defendants in FLSA lawsuits, Irizarry is now another powerful arrow in their quiver. For a company seeking to shield its C-suite from personal liability in potential FLSA claims, there's no failsafe approach.
“Maintain traditional lines of managerial authority,” Kaczmarek advises. “Delegate authority to the lower-levels.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Morgan & Morgan Litigators Flip $3.75M Jury Verdict Into $5.6M Settlement With State Farm
- 2A New Era of Enforcement on 10b5-1 Trading Plans: Implications of United States v. Peizer
- 3Albertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
- 4How New Jersey’s Pragmatic Bankruptcy Approach Sets It Apart Post-'Purdue Pharma'
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Take Every Opportunity to Learn,' Says David Fitzgibbon of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250