United States District Court, District of Columbia
B. WALTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
five plaintiffs-Jose Orellana (“Jose”), Santos
Orellana (“Santos”), Adali Valeriano Vasquez
(“Valeriano”), Herlan Edgardo Cornejo Bajurto
(“Cornejo”), and Moises Del Rosario (“Del
Rosario”)-bring this civil action against three
defendants-NBSB Inc. d/b/a George's King of Falafel and
Cheesesteak (“George's King”), Souheil Ben
Mansour (“Souheil”), and Sofiene Ben Mansour
(“Sofiene”)-asserting violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201-19 (2012) (the “FLSA”), and the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code §§
32-1001 to -1015 (2012) (the “DCMWA”). See
generally Second Amended Complaint (“2d Am.
Compl.”). Currently before the Court is the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(“Pls.' Mot.”). Upon careful consideration of
the parties' submissions,  the Court concludes that it must grant in
part and deny in part the plaintiffs' motion.
following facts are not in dispute. Defendant George's King “is
a corporation formed under the laws of” and
“operating as a restaurant in” the District of
Columbia. Pls.' Facts ¶ 1; Defs.' Facts ¶
1. Defendants Souheil and Sofiene are brothers and co-owners
of George's King, with each having a twenty-five percent
ownership interest in the business. Pls.' Facts ¶ 2; Defs.'
Facts ¶ 2.
plaintiffs are former George's King employees: (1)
“Jose [ ] worked for [George's King] from at least
May 4, 2016, until at least September 2, 2016, ”
Pls.' Facts ¶ 3; Defs.' Facts ¶ 3; (2)
“Santos [ ] worked for [George's King] from at
least April 30, 2016, until at least December 9, 2016,
” Pls.' Facts ¶ 7; Defs.' Facts ¶ 7;
(3) “Valeriano . . . worked for [George's King]
from at least May 30, 2016, until at least January 21, 2017,
” Pls.' Facts ¶ 11; Defs.' Facts ¶
11; (4) “Cornejo . . . worked for [George's King]
from at least August 4, 2016, until at least February 25,
2017, ” Pls.' Facts ¶ 15; Defs.' Facts
¶ 15; and (5) “Del Rosario [ ] worked for
[George's King] from at least May 3, 2016, until at least
January 5, 2017, ” Pls.' Facts ¶ 19;
Defs.' Facts ¶ 19. “During their employment at
George's King, [the p]laintiffs spent more than [fifty
percent] of their time working in the District of
Columbia.” Pls.' Facts ¶ 32; Defs.' Facts
George's King's overtime and minimum wage
obligations, “George's King's employee handbook
states: ‘In accordance with Federal Minimum Wage Law,
employees are paid overtime when they work more than [forty]
hours in one week. Hourly employees are paid at one and
one-half times their basic straight time rate for all
overtime hours works.'” Pls.' Facts ¶ 33;
Defs.' Facts ¶ 33. Souheil “did not consult an
attorney about the legality of choosing not to pay
[George's King's] employees overtime.”
Pls.' Facts ¶ 34; Defs.' Facts ¶ 34.
their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs assert five
causes of action against all three defendants: (1) failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, 2d Am. Compl.
¶¶ 31-37; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the DCMWA, id. ¶¶ 38-43; (3)
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the DCMWA,
id. ¶¶ 44-49; (4) retaliation in violation
of the FLSA, id. ¶¶ 50-58; and (5)
retaliation in violation of the DCMWA, see Id.
¶¶ 59-67. After the parties completed discovery,
the plaintiffs filed their motion for partial summary
judgment on March 2, 2018, seeking judgments regarding their
overtime and minimum wage claims. See Pls.' Mot.
at 1-2. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek judgment as a
matter of law on the following issues:
1. [Whether] the [d]efendants violated the FLSA and the DCMWA
by failing to pay [the p]laintiffs at the rate of
one-and-one-half times [ ] their regular rates of pay for
hours they worked each week in excess of forty [ ];
2. [Whether] the [d]efendants violated the DCMWA by failing
to pay [the p]laintiffs at the legally required minimum wage;
3. [Whether] Souheil . . . and Sofiene [ ] were [the
p]laintiffs' employers under the FLSA and the DCMWA, and
are jointly and severally liable to [the p]laintiffs; and
4. [Whether the p]laintiffs are entitled to liquidated
damages in an amount equal to three times [ ] their unpaid
Id. Defendants Souheil and George's King concede
liability for failing to pay overtime and the minimum wages
for some of the hours that some of the plaintiffs worked.
See Defs.' Opp'n at 13-16. Otherwise, the
defendants oppose the plaintiffs' motion. See
Defs.' Sur-Reply at 1-2 (clarifying that the liability is
conceded only for these two defendants).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
will grant a motion for summary judgment “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if it “might affect the outcome
of the suit under governing law, ” and a “dispute
about a material fact is ‘genuine' . . . if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant
and draw all reasonable inferences in his or her favor.
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)). “Credibility determinations
[and] weighing of the evidence” are not proper
functions for the Court on summary judgment. Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. Thus, “the evidence of the
non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in [his or her] favor.” Id.
the non-movant may not rely upon “mere allegations or
denials, ” Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513, 517
(D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at
248), and “must do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, ”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, the non-movant “must
set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for
trial, ” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, and
“there is [genuine] issue for trial unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the [non-movant] party for a
jury to return a verdict for [the non-movant], ”
id. at 249. If the Court concludes that “the
nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an
essential element of [his or her] case with respect to which
[he or she] has the burden of proof, ” the moving party
is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Conceded Liability and Damages
stated above, defendants Souheil and George's King
concede liability for failing to pay overtime and the minimum
wages for some of the hours that some of the plaintiffs
worked. See Defs.' Opp'n at 13-16; see
also Defs.' Sur-Reply at 1-2.[ ...