Nival v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Case No.: 22-cv-08463 (LGS) STEFANIE NIVAL, Plaintiff, -against- _P_r_o_p_o_s_e_d_ Default Judgment SUGAR FACTORY BROADWAY LLC d/b/a SUGAR FACTORY AMERICAN BRASSERIE, and EDWIN DOE, individually, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X This action having been commenced on October 4, 2022, by the filing of the Summons and Complaint, and a copy of the Summons and Complaint having been served on Defendant Sugar Factory Broadway LLC on October 17, 2022, by service on Sue Zouky, legal clerk for the secretary of state, authorized to accept service thereof, and proof of such service was filed on October 26, 2022; and Defendant Sugar Factory Broadway LLC not having answered the Complaint, and the time for answering the Complaint having expired; it is _______O_R__D_E_R__E_D_,_ _A__D_J_U_D__G_E_D__ _A__N_D__ _D_E__C_R_E__E_D_:_ _T_h_a_t_ _P_l_a_in_t_i_ff_ _h_a_s_ _j_u_d_g_m__en_t_ _a_g_a_i_n_s_t _D_e_f_e_n_d_a_n_t _S_U__G_A_R__ _F_A_C__T_O_R__Y_ _B_R__O_A__D_W__A_Y__ _L_L_C__ f_o_r_ _______________________ _in_ _b_a_c_k_ _p_a_y_ _p_lu_s_ _p_r_e-_ _ju_d_g_m__e_n_t _in_t_e_re_s_t_, _______________________ i_n_ u_n_p_a_i_d_ w__ag_e_s_,_ ______________________ _in_ _li_q_u_id_a_t_e_d_ d_a_m__ag_e_s_,_ e_m__o_ti_o_n_a_l _d_is_t_re_s_s_ _d_a_m__a_g_es_ __in_ __th_e_ _a_m__o_u_n_t __o_f ________________________, __p_u_n_it_i_v_e __d_a_m_a_g_e_s_ _i_n_ _t_h_e_ _a_m_o_u_n_t_ _o_f_ ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has judgment against Defendant Sugar Factory Broadway LLC as set forth below, in amounts to be determined by post-default judgment inquest. —Y-attorney’s_feesin the _amount-of4—_ and cestsinanameuntef- Dated: New York, New York , 2023 U.S.D.J. LORNA G. SCHOFIELD This document was entered on the docket on .

The Complaint asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ("PDA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and also under the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime, spread-of-hours, tip credit, tip pooling, time shaving, notice and recordkeeping, and wage statement provisions of the New York Labor Law and regulations promulgated thereunder. "[A] defendant who defaults thereby admits all 'well-pleaded' factual allegations contained in the complaint" but "a district court 'need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action." City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). "[A] district court is 'required to determine whether the plaintiff's allegations establish the defendant's liability as a matter of law." Id. The Complaint adequately alleges that Plaintiff effectively was fired because she was pregnant, was denied a requested reasonable accommodation, and otherwise was treated poorly by her employer because of her pregnancy, which constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex pursuant to the ADA, Title VII as amended by the PDA, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. Default judgment is granted on each of Plaintiff's discrimination claims The Complaint also adequately alleges facts to support her claims that Defendant Sugar Factory Broadway LLC illegally claimed tip credits for all hours Plaintiff worked, engaged in an illegal tip pooling scheme that included tip-ineligible workers, and failed to keep proper records and provide proper wage notices and statements.

Default judgment is granted on each of the foregoing wage-and-hour claims.

The Complaint does not adequately allege that Defendant Sugar Factory Broadway LLC engaged in time shavin or failed to pay spread-of-hours wages, because the Complaint does not include any factual allegations about how many hours Plaintiff worked and how many she was paid for. Default judgment is denied as to Plaintiff's time-shaving and spread-of-hours claims.

An order referring the case for a damages inquest will issue separately.

Dated: February 8, 2022 New York, New York □ LORNA G. SCHOFIEL 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE