OPINION & ORDER San Dang Wang and Jie Weng bring this action against their former employers New Shanghai Deluxe Corp (“New Shanghai”), Yeah Shanghai Deluxe Inc (“Yeah Shanghai”), Yu Lin Zhu (“Yu Lin”), Mei Fang Wu (“Mei Fang”), Rong Bing Zhu (“Rong Bing”), Rong Yang Zhu (“Rong Yang”), Yu Jun Zhu (“Yu Jun”), and Wei Chen, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law §§190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (“NYLL”). See Doc. 21. A bench trial was held on September 7, 2022.1 This Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the defendants are liable for violating the FLSA and the NYLL, including whether Rong Yang qualifies as an employer under the labor laws. I. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs brought this action for unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and spread of hours pay as well as the failure to provide wage notices and wage statements. Doc. 1. The plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, on November 15, 2019 and May 21, 2021. Docs. 7, 21. The defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint on July 19, 2021. Doc. 26. After the completion of discovery and an unsuccessful settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on February 15, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report on April 14, 2022 requesting that the Court schedule a trial. Doc. 38. The Court held a one-day bench trial on September 7, 2022. Both plaintiffs appeared and were cross-examined, testifying through a Chinese interpreter. The parties did not call any other witnesses.2 At the outset of the bench trial, defense counsel represented that the defendants did not dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations that they neither paid minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation, nor provided wage notices and wage statements. Defense counsel further conceded that the defendants did not keep any records on the hours the plaintiffs worked and the pay they received and that the plaintiffs worked six days, and in excess of 60 hours, per week. The Court therefore asked defense counsel regarding the issues in dispute. Defense counsel represented that the only issue in dispute is whether Rong Yang was an employer. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the bench trial, the Court directed the parties to provide the legal and factual basis as to why Rong Yang should or should not be considered an employer by September 21, 2022. Doc. 49. II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Undisputed Facts3 i. Wang From April 20, 2014 through October 25, 2019, Wang was employed as an assistant chef at the restaurant Yeah Shanghai, later known as New Shanghai, which was located at 50 Mott Street, New York, NY 10013. Doc. 41
1-2. Wang was scheduled to work Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, from 1:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., and Friday and Saturday, from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Id. 3. As a result, Wang usually worked 68 hours per week. Id. On April 1, 2019, Wang’s schedule changed to Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 10:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Id. 4. As a result, Wang usually worked 72 hours per week. Id. Wang was paid twice a month. Id. 5. Wang was paid $1,500 per month in 2014; $1,600 per month in 2015; $1,700 per month in 2016; $1,900 per month in 2017; $2,100 per month in 2018; and $2,400 per month in 2019. Id. Wang was not given wage notices or wage statements. Id. 6. ii. Weng From August 30, 2010 to October 2, 2019, Weng was employed as an assistant chef at the same restaurant. Id.
