throbber
Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 44
`
`SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
`Gregg I. Shavitz, pro hac vice
`Keith M. Stern, pro hac vice
`1515 S. Federal Hwy
`Boca Raton, Florida 33432
`Telephone: (561) 447-8888
`
`FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
`Joseph A. Fitapelli
`Brian S. Schaffer
`Frank J. Mazzaferro
`475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`Telephone: (212) 300-0375
`
`OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
`Justin M. Swartz
`Ossai Miazad
`Melissa L. Stewart
`3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`Telephone: (212) 245-1000
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`MAXCIMO SCOTT, JAY ENSOR, MATTHEW
`MEDINA, EUFEMIA JIMENEZ, KRYSTAL
`PARKER, STACY HIGGS, and CHRISTINA JEWEL
`GATELEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., and
`CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`12 Civ. 8333 (ALC)(SN)
`
`
`THIRD AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Maxcimo Scott, Jay Ensor, Matthew Medina, Eufemia Jimenez, Krystal Parker,
`
`Stacy Higgs, and Christina Jewel Gateley (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, as class representatives, upon personal knowledge as to themselves, and upon
`
`information and belief as to other matters, alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay for
`
`Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers, Apprentices and/or Assistant Managers (hereinafter
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`“Apprentices”), who work or have worked for Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and/or Chipotle
`
`Services, LLC (previously known as Chipotle Mexican Grill Service, Co., LLC), at Chipotle Mexican
`
`Grill Restaurants nationwide (collectively “Chipotle”).
`
`2.
`
`Chipotle is a chain of Mexican style Restaurants known for its natural ingredients
`
`and assembly line production. According to their website, Chipotle considers itself a “fast-
`
`casual” dining establishment, where “customers expect food quality that’s more in line with full-
`
`service restaurants, coupled with the speed and convenience of fast food.”
`
`http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/company/about_us.aspx.
`
`3.
`
`According to Chipotle’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending on December 31,
`
`2011, Chipotle operated 1,350 restaurants, employed 2,570 salaried employees and 28,370
`
`hourly employees. For the fiscal year 2011, Chipotle earned approximately $2.27 billion dollars
`
`in revenue.
`
`4.
`
`Chipotle’s restaurants are designed around the concept of an open kitchen, where
`
`employees are constantly engaging customers and preparing meals in front of customers in an
`
`assembly line production.
`
`5.
`
`Chipotle states in its’ 2011 form 10-K that, “All of our restaurant employees are
`
`encouraged to interact with customers no matter their job, whether preparing food or serving
`
`customers…” Chipotle further states that its’ “employees spend hours preparing our food
`
`onsite.”
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`At Chipotle, Apprentices are required to provide customer service while on duty.
`
`Apprentices spend the majority of their shifts working the assembly line, filling
`
`orders for customers, grilling, operating the cash register, and preparing items for the line
`
`including salsa, guacamole, chopped vegetables and other food items.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Regardless of the number of hours worked, Apprentices do not receive overtime
`
`compensation.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Chipotle classifies all Apprentices as “executives” and exempt from overtime pay.
`
`However, Apprentice’s primary duties are food preparation and customer service
`
`and are similar to the duties performed by hourly non-exempt employees.
`
`11.
`
`Apprentices should be classified as non-exempt from the overtime provisions of
`
`the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and state wage and hour laws.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chipotle applied the same compensation and
`
`employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Apprentices nationwide.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and
`
`former Apprentices nationwide who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and
`
`specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to remedy violations of the wage-
`
`and-hour provisions of the FLSA by Chipotle that have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
`
`employees of their lawfully earned wages.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Maxcimo Scott also brings this action on behalf of himself and all
`
`similarly situated current and former Apprentices who worked in New York pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law, Article 6, §§ 190 et
`
`seq., and Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
`
`regulations (collectively, “NYLL”).
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Jay Ensor also brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly
`
`situated current and former Apprentices who worked in Missouri pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the Missouri Labor Law Rev. Stat. § 290.502 and §
`
`290.505 (collectively, “MLL”).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Matthew Medina also brings this action on behalf of himself and all
`
`similarly situated current and former Apprentices who worked in Colorado pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of C.R.S. 8-4-101, et seq. and Colorado Wage
`
`Order No. 29, 7 C.C.R. 1103-1, et seq. (collectively “Colorado Wage Laws”).
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs Eufemia Jimenez and Christina Jewel Gateley also bring this action on
`
`behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former Apprentices who worked in
`
`Illinois pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of Illinois Minimum
`
`Wage Law, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 105/1, et seq., the Illinois Wage Payments and Collections Act,
`
`820 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 115/1, et seq., and their implementing regulations, 56 Ill. Admin. Code
`
`§§ 210.100 through 300.850 (collectively, “Illinois Wage Laws”).Plaintiff Krystal Parker also
`
`brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former Apprentices
`
`who worked in North Carolina pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy
`
`violations of North Carolina’s Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1, et seq., and
`
`implementing regulations, 13 N.C. Admin. Code 12.0300, et seq. (collectively, “North Carolina
`
`Wage Laws”).
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Stacy Higgs also brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly
`
`situated current and former Apprentices who worked in Washington pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act, Rev. Code Wash.
`
`§§49.46.005, et seq.; Washington’s Industrial Welfare Act, Rev. Code Wash. §§49.12.005, et
`
`seq.; Washington’s Wage Rebate Act, Rev. Code Wash. §§49.52.050, et seq.; and Washington
`
`Administrative Code §§296-126-092 (collectively, “Washington Wage Laws”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Maxcimo Scott
`
`19. Maxcimo Scott (“Scott”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Bronx, New
`
`York.
`
`20.
`
`From in or around 2007 until 2009 Scott was employed by Defendants as a Crew
`
`Member at the Chipotle located at 9 Saint Marks Place, New York, New York 10003 (“St.
`
`Marks”).
`
`21.
`
`From in or around 2009 to October 17, 2011, Scott was employed by Defendants
`
`as an Apprentice at the St. Marks Chipotle.
`
`22.
`
`As an Apprentice, Scott frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`23.
`
`Scott frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 50 to 55
`
`hours per week.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Scott
`
`premium overtime pay when he worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`25.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Scott
`
`spread-of-hours pay when the length of his workday was greater than 10 hours.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Scott is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`A written consent form for Scott was filed as an attachment to the original Class
`
`Action Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`Jay Ensor
`
`28.
`
`Jay Ensor (“Ensor”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Kansas City,
`
`Missouri.
`
`29.
`
`From in or around May 2010 until July 2010, Ensor was employed by Defendants
`
`as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 15100 West 119th Street, Olathe, Kansas 66062.
`
`30.
`
`From in or around July 2010 to March 2011, Ensor was employed by Defendants
`
`as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 306 South 9th Street, Columbia, Missouri 65201.
`
`31.
`
`From in or around March 2011 until June 2011, Ensor was employed by
`
`Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 2540 Broadway Bluffs Drive, Columbia,
`
`Missouri 65201.
`
`32.
`
`As an Apprentice, Ensor frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`33.
`
`Ensor frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 50 to
`
`60 hours per week.
`
`34.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Ensor
`
`premium overtime pay when he worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Ensor is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`A written consent form for Ensor was previously filed with the Court.
`
`Matthew Medina
`
`37. Matthew Medina (“Medina”) is an adult individual who is a resident of
`
`Lakewood, Colorado.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`38.
`
`From in or around April 2013 until in or around October 2013, Medina was
`
`employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 145 Union Blvd.,
`
`Lakewood, CO 80228.
`
`39.
`
`As an Apprentice, Medina frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`40. Medina frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 50 to
`
`55 hours per week.
`
`41.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Medina
`
`premium overtime pay when he worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`42. Medina is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the Colorado
`
`Wage Laws.
`
`43.
`
`A written consent form for Medina was previously filed with the Court.
`
`Eufemia Jimenez
`
`44.
`
`Eufemia Jimenez (“Jimenez”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Chicago,
`
`Illinois.
`
`45.
`
`From in or around October 2011 through in or around February 2012, Jimenez
`
`was employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 2809 North Ashland
`
`Avenue, Chicago, IL 60657.
`
`46.
`
`As an Apprentice, Jimenez frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`47.
`
`Jimenez frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 55 to
`
`60 hours per week.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay
`
`Jimenez premium overtime pay when she worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of
`
`40 hours in a workweek.
`
`49.
`
`Jimenez is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the Illinois
`
`Wage Laws.
`
`50.
`
`A written consent form for Jimenez was previously filed with the Court.
`
`Christina Jewel Gateley
`
`51.
`
`Christina Jewel Gateley (“Gateley”) is an adult individual who is a resident of
`
`Glendale Heights, Illinois.
`
`52.
`
`From in or around May 2010 through in or around February 2011, Gateley was
`
`employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located in Bloomingdale, IL.
`
`53.
`
`From in or around February 2011 through in or around April 2011, Gateley was
`
`employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located in La Grange, IL.
`
`54.
`
`As an Apprentice, Gateley frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`55.
`
`Gateley frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 55 to
`
`65 hours per week.
`
`56.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Gateley
`
`premium overtime pay when she worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`57.
`
`Gateley is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the Illinois
`
`Wage Laws.
`
`58.
`
`A written consent form for Gateley was previously filed with the Court.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`Krystal Parker
`
`59.
`
`Krystal Parker (“Parker”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Charlotte,
`
`North Carolina.
`
`60.
`
`From in or around October 2012 through in or around January 2013, Parker was
`
`employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 9335 N. Tryon St. Suite
`
`101, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28262.
`
`61.
`
`As an Apprentice, Parker frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`62.
`
`Parker frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 60 to
`
`65 hours per week.
`
`63.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Parker
`
`premium overtime pay when she worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`64.
`
`Parker is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the North
`
`Carolina Wage Laws.
`
`65.
`
`A written consent form for Parker was previously filed with the Court.
`
`Stacy Higgs
`
`66.
`
`Stacy Higgs (“Higgs”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Vancouver,
`
`Washington.
`
`67.
`
`From in or around February 2012 through in or around July 2012, Higgs was
`
`employed by Defendants as an Apprentice at the Chipotle located at 4120 196th St SW #150,
`
`Lynnwood, WA 98036.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`68.
`
`As an Apprentice, Higgs frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`member on the line.
`
`69.
`
`Higgs frequently worked more than 40 hours per week with an average of 50 to
`
`60 hours per week.
`
`70.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Higgs
`
`premium overtime pay when she worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`71.
`
`Higgs is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the Washington
`
`Wage Laws.
`
`72.
`
`A written consent form for Higgs was previously filed with the Court.
`
`Defendants
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
`
`73.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. has owned and/or operated the Chipotle restaurants
`
`during the relevant period.
`
`74.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a foreign business corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware.
`
`75.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.’s principal executive
`
`office is located at 1401 Wynkoop Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
`
`76.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a covered employer within the meaning of the
`
`FLSA and the NYLL, and, at all times relevant, employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated
`
`employees.
`
`77.
`
`At all times relevant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. maintained control, oversight,
`
`and direction over Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, including timekeeping, payroll,
`
`and other employment practices that applied to them.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`78.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. applies the same employment policies, practices, and
`
`procedures to all Apprentices at the Chipotle restaurants, including policies, practices, and
`
`procedures with respect to the payment of overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay.
`
`79.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.’s
`
`annual gross volume of sales made or business done was not less than $500,000.00.
`
`Chipotle Services, LLC
`
`80.
`
`Chipotle Services, LLC (previously known as Chipotle Mexican Grill Service, Co.,
`
`LLC) has employed the employees who worked or continue to work at Chipotle restaurants
`
`during the relevant period.
`
`81.
`
`Chipotle Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
`
`Colorado.
`
`82.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chipotle Services, LLC’s offices are located at 1401
`
`Wynkoop Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
`
`83.
`
`At all times relevant, Chipotle Services, LLC (previously known as Chipotle
`
`Mexican Grill Service, Co., LLC) has been the corporate entity listed on Plaintiffs’ paychecks
`
`and W-2 forms.
`
`84.
`
`Chipotle Services, LLC is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA
`
`and the NYLL, Colorado Wage Laws, Illinois Wage Laws, Missouri Wage Laws, North Carolina
`
`Wage Laws, Washington Wage Laws, and, at all times relevant, employed Plaintiffs and
`
`similarly situated employees.
`
`85.
`
`At all times relevant, Chipotle Services, LLC maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, including timekeeping, payroll, and
`
`other employment practices that applied to them.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Chipotle Services, LLC applies the same employment policies, practices, and
`
`procedures to all Apprentices at the Chipotle restaurants, including policies, practices, and
`
`procedures with respect to the payment of overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay.
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, Chipotle Services, LLC’s
`
`annual gross volume of business done was not less than $500,000.00.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`88.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1337, diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`89.
`
`In addition, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`90.
`
`The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`91.
`
`At least one member of the proposed class is a citizen of a state different from that
`
`of at least one Defendant.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims involve matters of national or interstate interest.
`
`Citizenship of the members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial
`
`number of states.
`
`94.
`
`Upon information and belief, greater than two-thirds of the members of all
`
`proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are not citizens of the same state.
`
`95.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. resides in
`
`Delaware.
`
`96.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`New York.
`
`97.
`
`This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`98.
`
`Venue
`
`is proper
`
`in
`
`the Southern District of New York pursuant
`
`to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
`
`occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action, an FLSA claim, on behalf of themselves
`
`and all similarly situated persons who have worked as Apprentices at Chipotle restaurants
`
`nationwide, who elect to opt-in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).
`
`100. Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate
`
`Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Apprentices.
`
`101. Consistent with Defendants’ policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiffs and the
`
`members of the FLSA Collective were not paid premium overtime compensation when they
`
`worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek.
`
`102. All of the work that Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective have
`
`performed has been assigned by Defendants, and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the
`
`work that Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed.
`
`103. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and
`
`repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to
`
`Plaintiffs and the members of FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is
`
`not limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`willfully failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs and the members of the
`FLSA Collective, premium overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`of 40 hours per workweek;
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`willfully misclassifying Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA collective as
`exempt from the protections of the FLSA; and
`
`willfully failing to record all of the time that its employees, including Plaintiffs
`and the members of the FLSA Collective, have worked for the benefit of
`Defendants.
`
`
`104. Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to pay
`
`Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of
`
`40 per workweek.
`
`105. Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective perform or performed the
`
`same primary duties.
`
`106. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.
`
`107. There are many similarly situated current and former Apprentices who have been
`
`underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised
`
`notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.
`
`108. This notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`109. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily
`
`identifiable and can be located through Defendants’ records.
`
`
`
`NEW YORK CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`110. Plaintiff Scott brings the Second and Fourth Causes of Action, NYLL claims,
`
`under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and a class of
`
`persons consisting of:
`
`All persons who work or have worked as an Apprentice
`and/or Assistant Manager and similar employees at
`Chipotle restaurants in New York between November 15,
`2006 and the date of final judgment in this matter (the
`“New York Rule 23 Class”).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`111. Excluded from the New York Rule 23 Class are Defendants, Defendants’ legal
`
`representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at
`
`any time during the class period has had, a controlling interest in Defendants; the Judge(s) to
`
`whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons
`
`who will submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the New York Rule 23
`
`Class.
`
`112. The members of the New York Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all
`
`members is impracticable.
`
`113. Upon information and belief, the size of the New York Rule 23 Class is at least
`
`100 individuals. Although the precise number of such employees is unknown, the facts on which
`
`the calculation of that number depends are presently within the sole control of Defendants.
`
`114. Defendants have acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`New York Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
`
`declaratory relief with respect to the New York Rule 23 Class as a whole.
`
`115. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the New York Rule 23 Class that
`
`predominate over any questions only affecting them individually and include, but are not limited
`
`to, the following:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`whether Defendants violated NYLL, Articles 6 and 19, and the supporting New
`York State Department of Labor regulations;
`
`whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule
`23 Class for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek;
`
`whether Defendants misclassified Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23
`Class;
`
`whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time and pay records for all hours
`worked by Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23 Class, and other records
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 16 of 44
`
`
`
`required by the NYLL;
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23
`Class spread-of-hours pay when the length of their workday was greater than 10
`hours;
`
`whether Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23
`Class with an accurate statement of wages, hours worked, rates paid, and the gross
`wages as required by the NYLL;
`
`whether Defendants’ policy of failing to pay workers was instituted willfully or
`with reckless disregard of the law; and
`
`the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for those
`injuries.
`
`116. The claims of Plaintiff Scott are typical of the claims of the New York Rule 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class he seeks to represent.
`
`117. Plaintiff Scott and all of the New York Rule 23 Class members work, or have
`
`worked, for Defendants as Apprentices at Chipotle.
`
`118. Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23 Class members enjoy the same statutory
`
`rights under the NYLL, including to be paid for all hours worked, to be paid overtime wages and
`
`spread-of-hours pay. Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23 Class members have all
`
`sustained similar types of damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the NYLL.
`
`Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23 Class members have all been injured in that they have
`
`been under-compensated due to Defendants’ common policies, practices, and patterns of
`
`conduct.
`
`119. Plaintiff Scott will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`members of the New York Rule 23 Class. Plaintiff Scott understands that as class representative,
`
`he assumes a fiduciary responsibility to the class to represent its interests fairly and adequately.
`
`Plaintiff Scott recognizes that as class representative, he must represent and consider the interests
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 17 of 44
`
`
`
`of the class just as he would represent and consider his own interests. Plaintiff Scott understands
`
`that in decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement, he must not
`
`favor his own interests over the class. Plaintiff Scott recognizes that any resolution of a class
`
`action must be in the best interest of the class. Plaintiff Scott understands that in order to provide
`
`adequate representation, he must be informed of developments in litigation, cooperate with class
`
`counsel, and testify at deposition and/or trial. Plaintiff Scott has retained counsel competent and
`
`experienced in complex class actions and employment litigation. There is no conflict between
`
`Plaintiff Scott and the New York Rule 23 members.
`
`120. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this litigation. The members of the New York Rule 23 Class have been damaged
`
`and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, as well as their
`
`common and uniform policies, practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages
`
`suffered by individual New York Rule 23 Class members are not de minimis, such damages are
`
`small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. The
`
`individual plaintiff lacks the financial resources to conduct a thorough examination of
`
`Defendants’ timekeeping and compensation practices and to prosecute vigorously a lawsuit
`
`against Defendants to recover such damages. In addition, class litigation is superior because it
`
`will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments
`
`about Defendants’ practices.
`
`121. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(b)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`MISSOURI CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`122. Plaintiff Ensor brings the Third Cause of Action, a MLL claim, under Rule 23 of
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 18 of 44
`
`
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and a class of persons consisting of:
`
`All persons who work or have worked as an Apprentice
`and/or Assistant Manager and similar employees at
`Chipotle restaurants in Missouri between February 13,
`2011 and the date of final judgment in this matter (the
`“Missouri Rule 23 Class”).
`
`123. Excluded from the Missouri Rule 23 Class are Defendants, Defendants’ legal
`
`
`
`representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at
`
`any time during the class period has had, a controlling interest in Defendants; the Judge(s) to
`
`whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons
`
`who will submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the Missouri Rule 23
`
`Class.
`
`124. The members of the Missouri Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all
`
`members is impracticable.
`
`125. Upon information and belief, the size of the Missouri Rule 23 Class is at least 50
`
`individuals. Although the precise number of such employees is unknown, the facts on which the
`
`calculation of that number depends are presently within the sole control of Defendants.
`
`126. Defendants have acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Missouri Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
`
`declaratory relief with respect to the Missouri Rule 23 Class as a whole.
`
`127. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Missouri Rule 23 Class that
`
`predominate over any questions only affecting them individually and include, but are not limited
`
`to, the following:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`whether Defendants violated MLL § 290.502 and § 290.505;
`
`whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff Ensor and the Missouri Rule
`23 Class for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek;
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 872 Filed 02/10/15 Page 19 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`whether Defendants misclassified Plaintiff Ensor and the Missouri Rule 23 Class;
`and
`
`the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for those
`injuries.
`
`128.
`
`The claims of Plaintiff Ensor are typical of the claims of the Missouri Rule 23
`
`Class he seeks to represent.
`
`129. Plaintiff Ensor and all of the Missouri Rule 23 Class members work, or have
`
`worked, for Defendants as Apprentices at Chipotle.
`
`130. Plaintiff Ensor and the Missouri Rule 23 Class members enjoy the same statutory
`
`rights under the MLL, including to be paid for all hours worked and to be paid overtime wages.
`
`Plaintiff Ensor and the Missouri Rule 23 Class members have all sustained similar types of
`
`damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the MLL. Plaintiff Ensor and the
`
`Missouri Rule 23 Class members have all been injured in that they have been under-compensated
`
`due to Defendants’ common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.
`
`131. Plaintiff Ensor will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`members of the Missouri Rule 23 Class. Plaintiff Ensor understands that as class representative,
`
`he assumes a fiduciary responsibility to the class to represent its interests fairly and adequately.
`
`Plaintiff Ensor recognizes that as class representative, he must represent and consider the
`
`interests of the class just as he would represent and consider his own interests. Plaintiff Ensor
`
`understands that in decisions regarding

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket