Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROSA GUTIERREZ, individually and on Civil Action No.
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a class action on behalf of all of Defendant Carter’s, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or
“Carter’s”), employees in the State of New York that engage in manual work in the course of
2. New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly
basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New
York State Department of Labor Commissioner. See New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), Article
3. Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York State
Department of Labor Commissioner.
4. The New York Court Of Appeals has explained that this law is “intended for the
protection of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance.” People v. Vetri, 309
N.Y. 401, 405 (citing former Labor Law § 196).
5. Defendant has violated this law by paying its manual workers every other week
rather than on a weekly basis.
6. Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees on
Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by Defendant in
New York State over the last six years.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts
significant business in New York. Defendant owns and operates numerous retail store locations
within New York.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proposed class action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which, under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the federal courts in any class action in which
at least 100 members are in the proposed plaintiff class, any member of the plaintiff class is a
citizen of a State different from any defendant, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of individual
members of the proposed Class (as defined herein) are well in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the
aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.
9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because this is a
judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
10. Defendant Carter’s, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant owns and operates a chain of Carter’s and OshKosh
B’gosh retail stores retail stores that employ hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the
State of New York.
11. Plaintiff Rosa Gutierrez is a citizen of New York who resides in Flushing, New
York. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2018 to 2020 at a Carter’s store
Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
located in Bayside, New York. At least 25% of Plaintiff’s job responsibilities at Carter’s
included manual labor, including tasks such as unloading and stocking inventory, handling and
unpacking deliveries, and assembling storefront displays. Plaintiff was paid every other week,
rather than weekly, during the entirety of her employment with Defendant. Thus, for half of
each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that she was temporarily deprived of money
owed to her, and she could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were
rightfully hers. Accordingly, every day that said money was not paid to her in a timely fashion,
she lost the time value of that money.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
12. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all
persons who worked as manual workers in their employment for Defendant in the State of New
York from six years preceding this Complaint to the date of class notice in this action (the
13. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder herein is
impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class number in the thousands. The
precise number of Class members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but
may be determined through discovery. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this
action by mail and/or publication through the employment records of Defendant.
14. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate
over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal and factual questions
include, but are not limited to: whether Defendant was required to pay class members on a
weekly basis, whether class members were paid on a weekly basis, and whether Defendant
violated NYLL § 191.
15. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class in that the
Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
named Plaintiff worked as a manual worker for Defendant during the class period but was not
provided with compensation for her work on a weekly basis.
16. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests do not
conflict with the interests of the Class members she seeks to represent, she has retained
competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and she intends to prosecute this
action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by
Plaintiff and her counsel.
17. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the claims of the Class members. Each individual Class member may lack the
resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and
extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation
increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system
presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also
presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action
device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single
adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of
Defendant’s liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and
claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
New York Labor Law – Failure to Pay Timely Wages
18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
19. The timely payment of wages provisions, NYLL § 191, and its supporting
regulations apply to Defendant and protect Plaintiff and the Class.
20. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class on a timely basis as required by
NYLL § 191(1)(a).
21. Due to Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class are
entitled to recover from Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
provided for by NYLL § 198.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
seeks judgment against Defendant, as follows:
a. For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and naming Plaintiff as a representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s
attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class members;
b. For an order declaring Defendant’s conduct violates the law referenced herein;
c. For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on the count asserted
d. For liquidated damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury;
e. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
f. For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ fees,
expenses, and costs of suit.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any
and all issues in this action so triable of right.
Case 1:22-cv-03234 Document 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
Dated: June 1, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
By: /s/ Yitzchak Kopel
Alec M. Leslie
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Counsel for Plaintiff