Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP.

427 F. Supp. 2d 327, 2005 WL 3312000
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 5, 2005
Docket04 Civ. 8987(LBS)
StatusPublished
Cited by93 cases

This text of 427 F. Supp. 2d 327 (Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP., 427 F. Supp. 2d 327, 2005 WL 3312000 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

Opinion

427 F.Supp.2d 327 (2005)

DOO NAM YANG, Plaintiff,
v.
ACBL CORP., Gold Lee Jewelry Co., and Han Sung Lee, Defendants.

No. 04 Civ. 8987(LBS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

December 5, 2005.

*328 *329 *330 Kenneth Kimberling, Steven Kyung, Choi, Asian American Legal Defense, New York City, for Plaintiff.

*331 Jonathan Yoon Sue, Eric Robert Stern, Sacks & Sacks, LLP, New York City, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAND, District Judge.

Plaintiff Doo Nam Yang brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law § 190 et seq., alleging that defendants Gold Lee Jewelry Company ("Gold Lee"), ACBL Corporation ("ACBL"), and Han Sung Lee failed to pay overtime and spread of hours pay. He also brings a common law claim of conversion, alleging that defendants deducted funds from his wages to pay employment taxes, but neither remitted the funds to the taxing authorities nor returned them to him. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The Court held a two day bench trial beginning on November 2, 2005. The only witnesses were Yang and Lee. In general, the Court found Yang's testimony to be credible and corroborated by other evidence, while Lee's testimony was replete with contradictions, his demeanor was hostile, and his answers were, for the most part, unworthy of credence. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Parties

Plaintiff Doo Nam Yang is a Korean immigrant who came to the United States on January 17, 1997 and currently lives in Queens. In Korea, Yang graduated high school and worked as a mechanic repairing sewing machines. He was first hired to work for defendants in October 1997 as a trainee, and eventually assumed such duties as ring-making, electric re-wiring, and repairing motors. (Trial Tr. 13-14, Nov. 2-3, 2005.) Although there were several breaks in his employment, the employment relationship terminated for the last time on February 27, 2004.

Defendant Gold Lee was a company engaged in the creation and sale of jewelry. It was founded by defendant Han Sung Lee, who remained its president and sole owner. In 2000, Lee closed Gold Lee and opened defendant ACBL, another jewelry business, in its stead. Since 2000, Lee has been the president and sole owner of ACBL. Lee's business was originally located at 50 West 47th Street # B4, Manhattan, but moved in 2000 to 31 W. 47th Street, Suite 203.

II. Yang's Compensation

A. Wages

Although a plaintiff seeking to recover under the FLSA must show insufficient payment for hours worked, under the statute it is the employer's responsibility to "make, keep, and preserve" records of employee wages and conditions of employment. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); see also 29 C.F.R. § 516.2.[1] When an employer has not kept such records, an employee suing for lost wages under the FLSA may carry his burden by submitting "sufficient evidence from which violations of the [FLSA] and the amount of an award may be reasonably inferred." Reich v. S. New England Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Martin v. Selker Bros., *332 949 F.2d 1286, 1296-97 (3d Cir.1991). The burden then shifts to the employer to present evidence either of the precise wages paid or evidence to "negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee's evidence." Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946).[2] New York law incorporates a similar standard.[3]

Both Lee and Yang testified that, after being introduced by the Director of the Korean American Association for Rehabilitation of the Disabled,[4] Lee interviewed and hired Yang for a trainee position at Gold Lee. The employment contract was oral (Tr. 77), and there is no evidence that defendants preserved "a written memorandum summarizing the terms" of this oral agreement, as federal law requires. 29 C.F.R. § 516.5(b)(4). Furthermore, at trial the defendants could not produce admissible records of Yang's wages during the course of his employment.[5] With no employer-preserved *333 records, then, Yang can meet his burden by presenting sufficient evidence to generate a reasonable inference as to what he was actually paid by defendants.

Yang testified that he was paid weekly, and initially only in cash, but that on his request he was paid partially by cash and partially by check for a few months in 2002, after which he was once again paid wholly in cash. (Tr. 30.) According to Yang, he was hired in October 1997 at a wage of $200 per week. He worked elsewhere from January 1998 until December 1998 and was unemployed from January 1999 until he resumed working for defendants on July 18, 1999. Yang testified that from July 18, 1999 until February 2000, he was paid $350 per week; from February 2000 until the end of September 2000, he was paid $400 per week; from October 2000 until February 2001, he was paid $450 per week; from March 2001 until September 2001, he was paid $500 per week; from October 2001 until the end of March 2002, he was paid $550 per week; and from April 2002 until February 27, 2004, the end of his employment, he was paid $600 per week, except that he was not working for defendants from March 2003 until the beginning of September 2003. (Tr. 28-29.)[6] In addition, Yang testified that every holiday season he received an extra week's wages as a bonus (Tr. 30), but that he never received extra money when he worked on the weekends or other periods when he worked extended hours. (Tr. 23-24.)

The documentary and testimonial evidence largely corroborates Yang's testimony. For instance, Lee testified at trial that he hired Yang at a wage of about $250 per week (Tr. 77), a rate which essentially confirms Yang's testimony.[7] Lee then stated that he raised Yang's wages several times over the course of Yang's tenure.[8]*334 Finally, Yang testified that for a few months in 2002, his $600 weekly wages were paid $300 in cash and $271 by check,[9] and he submitted photocopies of paychecks and bank statements from this period which support his testimony. (PLExs.2, 3). All of this evidence, coupled with Yang's generally credible demeanor and Lee's self-contradictory testimony, supports Yang's account of his wages. In sum, the Court holds that Yang has met his burden of presenting sufficient evidence from which his wages may be reasonably inferred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 F. Supp. 2d 327, 2005 WL 3312000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doo-nam-yang-v-acbl-corp-nysd-2005.