Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-15-2023

Case Style:

Musa Hoxhaj, et al. v. Michael Cetta, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 21-CV-6486

Judge: Lewis L. Liman

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manahattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best New York City Employment Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: New York City, New York employment law lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on Fair Labor Standards Act violation theories.

Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 27, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. They alleged claims for (1) failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), and New York State Department of Labor Regulations; (2) failure to pay Plaintiffs the tips left for them by patrons of Sparks, as required under NYLL § 196-d; (3) failure to pay spread of hours as required under NYLL and New York State Department of Labor Regulations; (4) failure to provide wage notices as required under NYLL § 198.1-b and 198.1-d; (5) age discrimination under New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”); (6) religious discrimination under NYCHRL for treating Plaintiffs Hoxhaj and El Shabeiny less well than other employees due to their religion. Id.

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff Cordero and Defendants agreed to a stipulation of dismissal only as to Plaintiff Cordero's age discrimination claim, but not any of Plaintiff Cordero's other claims. Dkt. No. 36.

Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment with supporting materials, including their Rule 56.1 Statement, on January 6, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 37-42. Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, along with a Rule 56.1 Counterstatement. Dkt. Nos. 43-48. In those papers, Plaintiffs state that they “no longer assert wage notice” or “wage statement claims” or any discrimination claims based “on the failure to recall them to work.” Dkt. No. 43 at 10, 12; Dkt. No. 44 at 2. Defendants filed a reply memorandum in support on March 3, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 51-52.

Outcome: For the reasons discussed, the Court grants summary judgment as to the claims for unpaid tips, failure to pay spread of hours, failure to provide wage notices, and all discrimination claims under the NYSHRL. The Court, however, denies summary judgment as to the claims for failure to provide overtime wages under the FLSA and NYLL and the claims for age and religious discrimination under the NYCHRL.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 37.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case