Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp.

14 Citing cases

  1. Schachtler Stone Prods. v. Town of Marshall

    6:21-cv-001100 (AMN/MJK) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 3, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    That Plaintiffs' allegations of neighborhood opposition are pled on information and belief is no matter because Plaintiffs identify a specific comparator in Williams Fence. See Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp., 15-CV-4507, 2016 WL 1268274, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (finding allegations on information and belief about the particulars of a comparator are permitted at this stage so long as a specific comparator is identified) (citing Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., 39 F.Supp.3d 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)); see also O'Connor v. New York State Dep't. of Fin. Servs., 1:21-cv-00828 (BKS/ATB), 2022 WL 3998099, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2022) (citing the same standard).

  2. Robinson v. De Niro

    1:19-cv-09156-LJL-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2023)

    Cases under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) involving retaliation for wage and hour complaints are also instructive on the level of detail needed to establish protected activity. See Dkt. 333 at 21 n.17; see also, e.g., Quintanilla v. Suffolk Paving Co., 2019 WL 885933, at *4, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2019) (informal complaints of payroll violations: “missing a lot of overtime” and being underpaid); Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., 2016 WL 1268274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (“missing overtime hours”).

  3. Mitchell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

    Civil Action 20 Civ. 1555 (PGG) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (ECF No. 39 at 8 ¶ 5). See Henderson v. Physician Affiliate Grp. of N.Y. P.C., No. 18 Civ. 3430 (JMF), 2019 WL 3778504, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019) (holding that information-and-belief allegations, unsupported by details about supposed comparators, failed to support disparate treatment theory of discrimination); see also Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., No. 15 Civ. 4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (noting that “[c]ourts in this district have . . . permitted” allegations “upon information and belief” as to comparators “if plaintiffs provide sufficient identifying details about similarly situated individuals”); cf. Barrett v. Forest Labs, Inc., 39 F.Supp.3d 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting plaintiffs to allege “upon information and belief” that they were paid less than their male co-workers where each plaintiff also “(1) state[d] the amount of her base salary, (2) identifie[d] at least one male comparator, and (3) allege[d] that the comparator received a higher base salary”).

  4. O'Connor v. N.Y. State Dep't of Fin. Servs.

    1:21-cv-00828 (BKS/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Karim v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 17-cv-6888, 2019 WL 1495098, at *6, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37008, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019) (“Plaintiff's ‘naked assertions' concerning similarly-situated white, non-Muslim applicants receiving privileges ‘upon information and belief' are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and do not provide at least minimal support for the proposition that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent.”); see also Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., No. 15-cv-4507, 2016 WL 1268274, at *4, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43608, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (dismissing § 1981 racial discrimination claim because the “[p]laintiffs' failure to allege the facts that form the basis for [their] belief that similarly-situated co-workers were paid [more than them], combined with [p]laintiffs' failure to identify any particular ‘comparators,' precludes [p]laintiffs from pleading ‘upon information and belief' in this circumstance” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Kajoshaj v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 543 Fed.Appx. 11, 14 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding that even if the plaintiffs' allegations “‘[u]pon information and belief' that the Academy promoted to sixth grade ‘non-Muslim students from families of non-Albanian origin' who had test scores and grades similar to Abedin” “might be ‘consistent' with a Title VI violation, they stop short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief”).

  5. Coker v. Goldberg & Assocs.

    21 Civ. 1803 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    As the FLSA and NYLL retaliation provisions are “‘nearly identical' and [are] analyzed under the same framework, ” Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., No. 15 Civ. 4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016)p, Coker also has alleged a retaliation claim under the NYLL. IV. CONCLUSION

  6. Perry v. High Level Dev. Contracting & Sec.

    1:20-CV-02180 (AMD)(PK) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)   Cited 15 times

    (See Memo of Law at 15.) Because the FLSA and NYLL retaliation provisions are “‘nearly identical', ” claims under both statutes are analyzed using the same framework. Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F.Supp.2d 447, 471 n.18 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); see also Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp., No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016).

  7. Fox v. Starbucks Corp.

    19-CV-4650 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2021)

    Such an internal complaint about violations of employees' rights is a protected activity under both federal and New York law. See Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016). Further, knowledge of that protected activity is established because, “for purposes of a prima facie case, a plaintiff may rely on ‘general corporate knowledge' of her protected activity to establish the knowledge prong of the prima facie case.” Kwan v. Andalex Grp.

  8. Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

    20-CV-4558 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021)   Cited 6 times

    Indeed, she does not "identify any particular 'comparators.'" Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp, No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016). Nor does she plead any facts suggesting the basis for believing that any of her non-African-American colleagues received higher pay or more substantial opportunities than she did.

  9. Henderson v. Physician Affiliate Grp. of N.Y. P.C.

    18-CV-3430 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's "failure to identify any particular comparators, combined with her failure to allege any facts to support her information-and-belief allegations that they were not subjected to the same negative treatment, precludes her from pleading upon information and belief that she was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees" from outside of her protected class (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)

    Without more, that is insufficient. See, e.g., Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp, No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (noting that "[c]ourts in this district have . . . permitted" allegations "upon information and belief" as to comparators "if plaintiffs provide sufficient identifying details about similarly situated individuals" (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting plaintiffs to allege that they were paid less than their male coworkers only "upon information on belief" because each plaintiff also "(1) state[d] the amount of her base salary, (2) identifie[d] at least one male comparator, and (3) allege[d] that the comparator received a higher base salary").

  10. Quintanilla v. Suffolk Paving Corp.

    CV 09-5331 (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Applying this standard in the summary judgment context

    As noted above, it is now clear in this Circuit that internal complaints can constitute protected activity under the anti-retaliation provisions of § 215(a)(3). Therefore, this Court is bound by the "clear weight of authority in this circuit," beginning with Greathouse. See, e.g., Cabrera v. CBS Corp., 17-CV-6011, 2018 WL 1225260, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018) ("After Greathouse, oral complaints may constitute protected activity for purposes of a § 215(a)(3) retaliation claim."); Manswell v. Heavenly Miracle Acad. Servs., Inc., No. 14-CV-7114, 2017 WL 9487194, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017) ("Complaining to a supervisor, whether formally or informally, is considered protected activity, as is filing a complaint with the EEOC."), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-CV-7114, 2017 WL 4075180 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2017); 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3); Santos, 2017 WL 9256490, at *3; Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp, 15-CV-4507, 2016 WL 1268274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) ("As a result, Defendants' argument that internal complaints cannot, as a matter of law, form the basis for a retaliation claim is incorrect."). The Court notes that various Plaintiffs testified during their depositions that they and others complained to Operations Supervisor Tommy McEvilly and Louis Vecchia throughout their employment, often on a weekly basis, of the ongoing failure to pay Plaintiffs their full wages, including overtime wages.