NEW ORLEANS – A federal judge in Louisiana recently certified two classes of plaintiffs in a collective wage claim lawsuit against a Gretna-area restaurant.
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for collective action certification in a June 24 order.
The plaintiffs – Connor Pulliam, Eric Truong, Majella Villaeba, Katherine Templeton, Assata Simpson, and Pakanan Tonsakul – brought the case against defendants Banana Blossom Thai Cafe LLC and Rattanasak Chotikarnul, or “Jimmy Cho,” for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, retaliating against employees who complained of the violations, and violating various Louisiana statutes.
In a June 8 filing, the plaintiffs moved the federal court to certify two classes of putative opt-in plaintiffs: putative overtime class members and putative tip pool class members.
“Having considered the motion, memorandum in support, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion,” Brown wrote in the eight-page order.
The plaintiffs allege they are all employees of Banana Blossom, located about six miles from downtown New Orleans.
In their lawsuit, they allege that owner Cho “has engaged in persistent wage theft from his employees for years.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim Cho refused to pay time-and-a-half for overtime, illegally deducted credit card fees from employees’ tips, and required servers to participate in an illegal tip pool.
In addition, they contend that once the FLSA violations were brought to the defendants’ attention, they were retaliated against.
The defendants imposed new restrictions on them and terminated benefits, the plaintiffs allege.
“Here, Plaintiffs have presented abundant evidence to the Court including sworn testimony; admissions from Defendants; financial records consistent with Plaintiffs’ allegations of illegal tip pooling and lack of overtime pay; and Defendants’ counsel’s stipulation that overtime was not paid out during the relevant time period,” Brown wrote in her order.
“Further, Defendants have not responded to the instant motion.”
Brown ruled that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing that the putative plaintiffs of the two requested classes are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs.
“Specifically, Plaintiffs have shown that the putative plaintiffs were subject to similar disparate factual and employment settings, the potential defenses Defendants’ may have against claims from said classes of plaintiffs appear to be similar, and the interest of fairness is served by this Court certifying the requested classes at this stage of litigation, now that discovery has closed,” the judge wrote.
Brown ordered that the defendants have 10 days to disclose to the plaintiffs the names, last known home addresses, email addresses – both business and home – and home and cell phone numbers for the potential opt-in plaintiffs.
Opt-in plaintiffs, she ordered, shall opt in within 30 days of the date that notice is sent to members of the collective.
Any opt-ins who seek to join the action after that deadline must “establish good cause for their delay,” Brown wrote.
