Salinas v. Starjem Restaurant Corp. (123 F. Supp. 3d 442, 2015)

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2015-08-12

Citations

Full opinion text

OPINION AND ORDER

ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:

I. Overview

In this action, Plaintiffs, current and former employees of the restaurant known as Fresco by Scotto, allege that Defendants, Starjem Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a Fresco by Scotto), Marion Scotto, and Anthony Scotto, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), §§ 190 and 650 et seq. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) improperly took a tip credit against Plaintiffs’ wages; (2) failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide Plaintiffs written notices and wage statements compliant with NYLL § 195; (4) wrongly required Plaintiffs to cover the costs of uniforms and crumbers; and (5) failed to pay Plaintiffs the “spread of hours” premium mandated by the New York Commissioner of Labor’s Minimum Wage Order, codified at NY. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 146-1.6.

The Court held a bench trial from December 8 to 16, 2014, to determine Defendants’ liability, if any. Post-trial memo-randa were fully submitted on January 28, 2015. '

At trial, Plaintiffs called Pablo Alvarado, Jose Amezquita, Miguel Caravantes, Angel Cedeño, Nahun Flores, Pablo Francisco Lopez, Vicente Leon, Francisco Lugo, Luis Roballo, Alfredo Rodriguez, Enrique Salinas, Christian Urgiles, and Valentin Xochipiltecatl (i.e., the 13 Plaintiffs) as witnesses. Defendants called Natasha Gel-man, Anthony Scotto,’ Marion Scotto, and Attilio Vosilla. Defendants also submitted excerpts from the deposition of Brent Drill. Plaintiffs adduced counter-designations from the deposition.

The Court finds the lion’s share of Plaintiffs’ testimony credible. This determination is based on the substance of Plaintiffs’ testimony and their demeanor at trial. Although there were some inconsistencies in Plaintiffs’ testimony, the Court considers them to be honest errors, not intentional lies. The Court also finds the testimony of Marion Scotto and, for the most part, that of Gelman credible. By contrast, the Court finds Anthony Scotto’s and Vosilla’s testimony less than credible. This determination, is likewise based on the substance of their testimony and their demeanor. Anthony Scotto was a flippant, evasive, and combative witness. See, e.g., Tr. 516:19-517:5 (“Q. Were those answers [given at your deposition] correct and truthful? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, your mother had been present at some interviews? A. Possibly I was taking things a little bit more lackadaisical on this conversation with you, sir. Q. Referring to the conversation at the deposition? A. Yes, sir. I think I was .... just being a little silly with you, sir. Q. Okay. And you were under oath at that time, correct? A: Still possibly being silly, sir.”); Tr. 536:7-9 (“Q. Friday we also discussed the Fresco employee policy guide. Do you recall that? A. Sorry, sir. Everything is a blur these days.”); Tr. 579:8-13 (“Q. Other than your affidavit, is Mr. Vosilla described in any documents as a maxtre d’ or service manager? A. I don’t know. Q. At your deposition d[id] you ever refer to him as maitre d’? A. Sir, if I wasn’t getting sued would you really care what his tifie was?”). Vosilla was uncommonly reticent and appeared relue-tant to provide testimony adverse to Defendants.

“In an action tried on the facts without a jury ... the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1). Following are the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

II. Findings of Fact

A. The Parties

1. Fresco by Scotto

Fresco by Scotto (“Fresco” or the “Restaurant”) is an Italian restaurant located in the Midtown East neighborhood of Manhattan. The Restaurant is owned and operated by Starjem Restaurant Corp. (“Starjem”). Tr. 511:12-14.

2. Plaintiffs

a. Pablo Alvarado

Alvarado was employed at Fresco from October 8, 1998 until November 13, 2012. Joint Stipulation of Fact (“Jt. Stip.”) ¶ 10, Nov. 11,2014, ECF No. 56. He worked as a runner. Id.

b. Jose Amezquita

Amezquita worked at Fresco from January 1, 2012 until August 27, 2013. Id. ¶ 6. Over the course of his employment, Amezquita worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; and (4) stocker. Tr. 429:25-430:7; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 9, PI. Ex. 114.

c.Miguel Caravantes

Caravantes worked at Fresco from September 21, 1999 until February 21, 2013. Jt. Stip. ¶ 8. Over the course of his employment, Caravantes worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; (4) stocker; and (5) runner. Tr. 410:9-22, 417:14-15; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 9, PI. Ex. 113.

d.Angel Cedeño

Cedeño began working at Fresco on March 1, 2011. Jt. Stip. ¶ 3. At the time of trial, Cedeño was still employed there. Id. Over the course of his employment, Cede-ño has worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee helper; and (4) stocker. Tr. 391:13-392:14; Cede-ño Decl. ¶ 10, PI. Ex. 112.

e.Nahun Flores

Flores worked at Fresco from May 1, 1998 until May 1, 2013. Jt. Stip. ¶ 9. Over the course of his employment, Flores worked in the following positions: (1) bus-ser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; (4) stocker; and (5) runner. Id.; Tr. 362:5-363:4; Flores Decl. ¶ 10, PI. Ex. 111. During his last ten years at Fresco, Flores spent approximately 90 percent of his shifts in the coffee preparer position. Tr. 362:5-17.

f.Pablo Francisco Lopez

Francisco Lopez worked at Fresco from November 1, 2007 until January 15, 2012. Jt. Stip. ¶ 11. Over the course of his employment, Francisco Lopez worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; and (4) stocker. Tr. 279:2-6; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 11, PI. Ex. 108.

g.Vicente Leon

Leon began working at Fresco on January 1,1999. Jt. Stip. ¶ 13. At the time of trial, Leon was still employed there. Id. Over the course of his employment, Leon has worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee helper; (4) coffee preparer; (5) stocker; and (6) runner. Id.; Tr. 478:2-14, 482:23-24, 492:23-24; Leon Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, PI. Ex. 116.

h.Francisco Lugo

Lugo worked at Fresco from November 1, 2011 until February 7, 2014. Jt. Stip. 5. Over the course of his employment, Lugo worked in the following positions: (1) bus-ser; (2) barback; (3) coffee helper; and (4) stocker. Tr. 460:10-24, 464:8-9; Lugo Decl. ¶ 10, PL Ex. 115.

i.Luis Roballo

Roballo worked at Fresco from December 1, 2009 until 'April 4, 2013. Jt. Stip. ¶7. Over the course of his employment, Roballo worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; and (4) stacker. . Id,; Tr. 333:25— 334:10, 353:11-15; Roballo Deck ¶ 11, Pl. Ex. 110.

j.Alfredo Rodriguez

Rodriguez began working at Fresco on March 1, 2011. Jt. Stip. ¶ 2. At the time of trial, Rodriguez was still employed there. Id. Over the course of -his employment, Rodriguez has worked in the following positions; (1) busser; (2) barback; and (3) stacker. Tr. 312:7-20; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 10, Pl. Ex. 109.

k. Enrique Salinas

Salinas worked at Fresco from January 1, 2006 until April 26, 2013. Jt. Stip. ¶ 1. Over the course of his employment, Salinas worked in the following positions: (1) bus-ser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; (4) coffee helper; and (5) Stocker. Tr. 11:6-8, 48:7-9, 55:15-19, 70:9-20; Jt. Stip. ¶ 1; Salinas Deck ¶¶ 10-11, Pl. Ex. 104. Salinas spent 75 to 90 percent of his shifts in the stocker position. Tr. 70:9-20.

l. Christian Urgiles

Urgiles worked at Fresco from January 1, 2006 until April 23, 2013. Jt. Stip. ¶ 4. Over the course of his employment, Ur-giles worked in the following positions: (1) busser; (2) barback; (3) coffee preparer; and (4) Stocker. Tr. 137:21-23, 179:12-15, 189:4-6; Urgiles Deck 10, Pk Ex. 105.

m.Valentin Xochipiltecatl

Xochipiltecatl worked at Fresco from June 17, 2009 until November 3, 2010. Jt. Stip. ¶ 12. Over the course of his employment, Xochipiltecatl worked in the follows ing positions: (1) busser; and (2) -Stocker. Tr. 261:6-8; Xochipiltecatl Deck ¶ 10, Pl. Ex. 107.

3. Individual Defendants

a. Anthony Scotto

Anthony Scotto is the general manager of Fresco. Tr. 511:8-11. He is also a shareholder and the secretary-treasurer of Starjem.' Tr. 511:12-512:5; A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 3, Def. Ex. K. He is usually at the Restaurant every day that it is open. A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 4. On weekdays, he is there from 8:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Id. On Saturdays, he is there for a short period at around 7:00 a.m., and again from 2:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Tr. 512:12-18; A. Scotto Aff. ¶4. During the summer, he is often not at the Restaurant on Saturdays. Tr. 514:17-25. As general manager, Anthony Scotto is responsible for managing the business and running the day-to-day operations. A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 3. In particular, he is involved in: (1) hiring employees; (2) disciplining employees; (3) firing employees; (4) scheduling employees for shifts; (5) determining employee compensation; and' (6) maintaining employment records. Tr. 236:10-23, 390:17-19, 409:19-410:8, 429:14-17; A. Scotto Aff. ¶¶4-5, 10, 13, 17-18; A. Scotto Supp. Deck ¶ 12, Def. Ex. L.

b. Marion Scotto

Marion Scotto is the chief executive officer, president, and majority shareholder of Starjem. Tr. 511:24-512:2, 681:19-682:2, 682:14-16; M. Scotto Aff. ¶4, Def. Ex. O. She is typically at the Restaurant every day that it "is open. Tr. 685:8-12; M. Scotto Aff. ¶ 11. On weekdays, she is there from 12:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. ’M. Scotto Aff. ¶ 11. Marion Scotto’s main duties include:' (1) greeting customers when they arrive at the Restaurant"; (2) helping the host seat Customers; (3) checking on customers throughout then-meal; and (4) making arrangements for private parties. "Tr. 524:5-10, 685:15-19; M. Scotto Aff. ¶¶ 7-8, 12. In performing these duties, Marion Scotto may tell a busser to: (1) reset a table to accommodate additional or fewer customers; .(2) arrange tables in a certain manner for a private party; (3) bring bread or an appetizer to a customer’s table; or (4) clean up a spill or similar mess. Tr. 122:20-123:5, 683:22-684:4; M. Scotto Aff. ¶¶ 15-16; Amezquita Decl. ¶36; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 47; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 41; Flores Decl. ¶ 48; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶45; Leon Decl. ¶ 47; Lugo Decl. ¶ 43; Roballo Decl. ¶ 49; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 44; Salinas Decl. ¶48; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 48; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 39. It is also “not uncommon” for her to provide one of the two owner signatures on employees’ paychecks. M. Scotto Aff. ¶ 10; accord Tr. 523:18-524:4, 685:13-14. In addition, Marion Scotto' is sometimes involved in hiring hosts and hostesses. Tr. 254:16-18, 515:20-516:20, 684:5-12; Alvarado Decl. ¶48, PI. Ex. 106; Amezquita Decl. if 40; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 51; Cedeño Decl. IT 45; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶49; Leon Decl. ¶ 51; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 52; Xo-chipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 43. She is not involved in: (1) hiring any other employees; (2) disciplining employees; (3)’firing employees; (4) scheduling employees for shifts; (5) monitoring employee attendance; or (6) determining employee compensation. M. Scotto Aff. ¶¶ 4-5,10,13-14, 23.

B. Managers

1. Attilio Vosilla

Vosilla has worked as a manager at Fresco since 1999. Tr. 663:24-665:6; PI. Ex. 74 at 7996 (“Fresco Policy Document” dated October 2007 identifying Vosilla as a “restaurant manager”). His job duties have remained largely the same since the beginning of his employment. Tr. 665:2-6, 676:22-24, 679:24-680:7. Vosilla is typically at the Restaurant on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays from 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. Vosilla Aff. ¶ 6, Def. Ex. N. On occasion, Vosilla serves as a “party captain.” Id. - ¶ 27. A party captain is responsible for overseeing the service for one or more private parties. Id. ¶¶ 28-30. Vosilla’s primary duty, though, is to oversee the dinner service at the Restaurant, which entails supervising and directing runners, bussers, and waiters and assisting customers as needed. Id. ¶¶ 4, 22, 41; A. Scotto Decl, ¶¶ 30-31; Alvarado Decl. ¶ 73; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 62; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 72; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 65; „ Flores Decl. ¶ 75; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶70; Leon Decl. ¶ 73; Lugo Decl. ¶ 72; Roballo Decl. ¶ 73; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 72; Salinas Decl. ¶75; Urgiles Decl. ¶78; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 65. Since at least 2007, Vosilla. has prepared .the initial draft of the weekly schedule of employees’ shifts, which is submitted to Anthony Scotto for final approval.. Tr. 666:10-667:22, 676:20-21. In connection with this duty, Vosilla fakes into account scheduling requests from employees and is able to authorize shift swaps between employees after the schedule is posted. Tr. 168:10-172:20, 668:18-669:8; Alvarado Decl, ¶ 75; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 64; Cara-vantes Decl. ¶ 74; . Cedeño Decl. ¶ 67; Flores Decl. ¶ 77; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 72; Leon Decl. ¶ 75; ■ Lugo Decl. ¶ 74; Roballo Decl. ¶75; Rodriguez Decl. ¶74; Salinas Decl. ¶ 77; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 80; Xo-chipiltecatl. Decl. ¶ 67. Vosilla has also interviewed applicants and made suggestions to Anthony Scotto about whether a particular applicant should be hired. Tr. 672:12-21, 676:11-16; PI. Ex. 96 (printout of Vosilla’s Linkedln page, which states that Vosilla “[i]nterview[s] and hire[s] new employees” at Fresco); Alvarado Decl. ¶.'79; , Amezquita Decl. ¶ 70; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 77; Flores Decl. ¶ 83; Leon Decl. ¶ 79; Lugo Decl. ¶ 78; Roballo Decl. ¶ 80; Rodriguez Decl. ¶80; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 85; Xochipiltecatl Decl. if 70. In addition, Vo-silla has: (1) signed employment documents on behalf of the Restaurant, Tr. 664:22-24, 672:22-674:14; PI. Ex. 37 (“Employee Reference Guide Receipt and Acknowledgment” dated July 6, 2007, which Vosilla signed as “Company Representative”); PL Ex. 38 (wage notice dated March 9, 2011, which Vosilla signed as “Company Representative”); PI. Ex. "39 (I-9 form dated March 12, 2011, which Vosilla signed as “Employer or Authorized Representative”); (2) disciplined employees orally and in writing, Tr. 324:13-17, 665:7-666:3; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 66; Roballo Decl. ¶ 77; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 76; PI. Exs. 35, 63 (written" disciplinary communications issued by Vosilla); (3) suspended employees, Tr. 376:23-377:20, 379:10-381:14, 444:11-447:11; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 65; Flores Decl. ¶ 79; and (4) fired employees, Tr. 105:18-106:14, 122:14-19, 172:21-178:10, 324:18-22, 396:10 — 25; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 69; Flores Decl. ¶ 80;' Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 77; Salinas Decl. ¶ 79; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 82.

2. Brent Drill

Drill worked at Fresco from April 2002, Drill Dep. 12:25-13:4, Jan. 6, 2014, until July 25, 2014, A. Scotto Aff. 37. He was hired to work as a waiter, but was promoted to the position of “floor captain” after less than a year. Drill Dep. 14:16-15:4. By October 2007, Drill had become a manager. PI. Ex. 74 at 7996 (“Fresco Policy Document” dated October 2007 identifying Drill as a “restaurant manager”). Drill’s primary duty as a manager was to oversee the lunch service at the Restaurant, which entailed supervising and directing runners, bussers, and waiters and assisting customers as needed. See Drill Dep. 22:25-23:22, 25:9-13; A. Scotto Decl. ¶¶ 36-37; Alvarado Decl. 62, 64-65, 70; Amezquita Decl. ¶¶ 50-51, 58; Caravantes Decl. 60-61, 68; Cedeño Decl. ¶¶ 54-55, 60; Flores Deck ¶¶ 61-63, 71; Francisco Lopez Deck 59-61, 66, 68; Leon Decl. ¶¶ 62-63, 67; Lugo Decl. 57-61; Roballo Decl. 59-60, 64, 70; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 58-61, 68; Salinas Decl. ¶¶ 62-64, 70; Urgiles Decl. 63-66, 73; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶¶ 53-54, 61. He also oversaw the dinner service on Mondays. See Drill Dep. 101:17-20; Alvarado Decl. ¶ 71; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 60; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 71; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 63; Flores Decl. ¶ 73; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶67; Leon Decl. ¶ 71; Lugo Decl. ¶ 71, Roballo Decl. ¶ 72; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 71; Salinas Decl. ¶ 73; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 76; ■ Xochipilte-catl Decl. ¶ 64. In addition, as a manager, Drill: (1) accepted resumes from applicants, asked them about their availability, invited them to return to the Restaurant for training, arid called their references, Tr. 121:21-122:13, 156:10-159:18, 272:9-274:6, 541:17-23, 644:4-22; Drill Dep. 43:2-45:14; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 4; Salinas Decl. ¶ 4; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 4; (2) oversaw new employee training, Tr. 153:22-154:12, 542:17-20; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 54; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 65; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 58; Flores Decl. ¶ 68; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 5, 63; Leon Decl. ¶ 65; Lugo Decl. ¶ 64; Roballo Decl. ¶ 67; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 65; Salinas Decl. ¶ 67; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶ 4, 70; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 58; (3) gave suggestions to Anthony Scotto about the number of bussers and runners to schedule per shift, Drill Dep. 37:2-18; (4) disciplined employees orally and in writing, Tr. 440:4-444:10, Drill Dep. 23:18-22, 36:11-14, 115:10-22; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 51; Flores Decl. ¶ 62; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 60; Lugo Decl. ¶ 58; Roballo Decl. ¶ 60; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 59; Salinas Decl. ¶ 63; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶ 64-65; Xochipilte-catl Decl. ¶ 54; (5) suspended employees, Tr. 164:6-168:9, 323:22-324:12, 373:9-379:7; Drill Dep. 104:18-21; Amezquita. Decl. ¶ 52; Flores Decl. ¶¶ 65-66; Leon Decl. ¶ 63; Roballo Decl. ¶ 61; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 63; Salinas Decl. ¶ 66; Urgiles Decl, ¶ 68; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 56; and (6) fired employees, Tr. 356:6-357:9, 439:16-440:3, 471:10-472:6, 494:8-495:5, 502:25-505:18, 592:20-593:15; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 53; Leon Decl. ¶ 63; Roballo Decl. ¶ 62; PI. Exs. 36, 59 (written termination notices signed by Drill).

C. Job Duties

1. Bussers

At Fresco, bussers’ main duties include: (1) pouring water for customers; (2) bringing bread to tables; and (3) clearing and resetting tables. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 7; Amezquita Decl. ¶¶ 7, 19; Caravantes Decl. ¶¶8, 19; Cedeño Decl. ¶¶8, 22; Flores Decl. ¶¶ 8, 22; Francisco Lopez Decl., 9, 22; Leon Decl. ¶¶7, 21; Lugo Decl. ¶¶ 8, 22; Roballo Decl. ¶¶ 9,22; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶8, 22; Salinas Decl. ¶¶8, 22; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶8, 22; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶¶ 8,. 20; A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 6. At the beginning of a shift, before the Restaurant opens, bussers perform “side work,” which includes: (1) folding napkins; (2) placing glasses at their proper stations; (3) filling and bringing ice buckets to their proper stations; (4) cleaning and polishing bread baskets, candleholders, pans, sugar bowls, coffee trays, and milk trays; (5) cleaning mirrors, coffee pots, tea pots, and water pitchers; and (6) sweeping the floor. Amezquita Decl. ¶ 21; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 21; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 24; Flores Decl. ¶ 25; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 24; Leon Decl. ¶ 24; Lugo Decl. ¶ 24; Roballo Decl. ¶ 25; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 24; Salinas Decl. ¶24; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 24; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶22. This beginning-of-shift side work takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Tr. 292:9-11, 295:17-296:3, 416:20-25, 460:25-461:16, 462:2-9; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 21; Caravantes Decl. 21; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 24; Flores Decl. ¶25; Francisco Lopez Decl. 24; Leon Decl. 24; Lugo Decl. ¶ 24; Roballo Decl. ¶ 25; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 24; Salinas Decl. ¶ 24; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 24; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 22. Bus-sers also perform side work at the end of their shifts, which includes: (1) cleaning the busser stations, the area of the kitchen where bread is made, and the Restaurant’s walls; (2) dumping ice buckets at the bus-ser stations; (3) bringing boxes of water to the bar; (4) sweeping the floor; (5) collecting candleholders; (6) moving tables and chairs; and (7) removing trash from the bar. Amezquita Decl. 22; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 22; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 25; Flores Decl. ¶ 26; Francisco Lopez Decl; ¶ 25; Leon Decl. ¶ 25; Lugo Decl. ¶ 25; Roballo Decl. ¶26; Rodriguez Decl. ¶25; Salinas Decl. If 25; Urgiles Decl. 25; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶23. This end-of-shift side work takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. Tr. 295:14-296:8; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 21; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 21; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 24; Flores Decl. ¶ 25; Leon Decl. ¶ 24; Lugo Decl. ¶ 24; Roballo Decl. ¶ 25; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 24; Salinas Decl. ¶ 24; Ur-giles Decl. ¶ 24; Xochipiltecatl Decl; ¶ 22. In addition, bussers routinely perform the following tasks throughout their shifts: (1) cleaning the Restaurant’s walls and the photographs and paintings hanging on the walls; (2) stocking goods delivered from vendors; (3) sweeping rugs and carpets; and (4) bringing dishes, chairs, tables, and room dividers between the main dining area and the party rooms. Amezquita Decl. if 20; Caravantes Decl. if 20; Cede-ño Decl. ¶ 23; Flores Decl. ¶ 24; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 23; Léon Decl. ¶ 23; Lugo Decl. ¶ 23; Roballo Decl. ¶ 23; Rodriguez Decl. ¶23; Salinas Decl. ¶ 23; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 23; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 21. These tasks take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Amezquita Decl. ¶ 20; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 20; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 23; Flores Decl. ¶ 24; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶23; Leon Decl. ¶ 23; Lugo Decl. ¶ 23; Roballo Decl. ¶ 23; Rodriguez Decl. II23; Salinas Decl. ¶ 23; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 23; Xo-chipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 21;

2.. Runners

Runners’ primary duty is to bring food from the kitchen to customers in the dining area. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 9; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 23; A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 7. At the beginning of their shifts, before the Restaurant opens, runners perform side work, which includes: (1) weighing pasta; (2) plucking basil leaves; (3) cutting lemons; (4) preparing artichokes for calamari; (5) setting up plates with artichokes and penne gra-tín; (6) cleaning dishes, containers, and bread baskets; (7) separating doilies to put on plates; (8) folding napkins; and (9) cutting linens to use for polishing dishes, silverware, and glasses. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 13; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 24. This beginning-of-shift side work takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 13. Runners also perform side work at the end of the lunch shift, which includes: (1) “turning in” plates from the dishwasher station; and (2) preparing artichokes for penne gratín. Id. ¶ 15. This end-of-shift side work takes approximately five to 10 minutes to complete. Id. In addition, runners routinely perform the following tasks throughout their shifts: (1) cleaning the Restaurant’s walls and doors; (2) cutting rags for polishing silverware; and (3) making cookies; Alvarado Decl. ¶ 11; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 24. These tasks take approximately 30 to 60 minutes to complete. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 11.

3. Barbacks

Barbacks’ duties include: (1) clearing and resetting tables in the bar area; (2) bringing ice, boxes of water, boxes of liquor, silverware, and glasses to the bar; (3)' preparing non-alcoholic drinks soda and water); (4) serving house wine; (5) washing glasses; (6) cleaning bottles, mirrors, windows, and the bar area; and (7) sweeping the sidewalk in front of the Restaurant. Tr. 55:15-56:4, 146:23-152:13, 192:21-196:10, 306:16-308:15, 312:19-315:20, 353:11-354:1; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 25; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 27; Flores Decl. ¶ 31; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶28; Leon Decl. ¶29; Lugo Decl. ¶¶ 28-29; Roballo Decl. ¶ 30; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 28-29; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 28; Vosilla Aff. ¶16.

4. Stockers

Stockers’ main duties include: (1) cleaning, polishing, and drying glasses, dishes, and silverware; (2) bringing these items from the kitchen to the stocking stations; (3) cleaning the stocker stations; (4) laying down small carpets;" (5) cutting rags for polishing glasses, dishes, and silverware; and (6) sweeping the sidewalk in front of the Restaurant. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 24; Amezquita Decl. ¶¶ 13'-14; Caravantes Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Cedeño Decl. ¶¶ 14-16; Flores Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 16-17; Leon Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Lugo Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Roballo Decl. ¶¶ 16-17;: Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Salinas Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Xochi-piltecatl Decl. 14-15; see also Tr. 612:10-14, 670:3-7. At times, Stockers are also required to wash dishes: * Amezquita Decl. ¶ 15; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 17; 'Flores .Decl. ¶ 17; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 18; Leon Decl. ¶ 16; Lugo Decl. - ¶ 17; Roballo Decl. ¶ 18; Rodriguez Decl, ¶ 17; Salinas Decl. ¶ 17; Urgiles Decl, ¶ 17; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 16. In addition, Stockers.are sporadically ordered by the chef to “run” food to customers (i,e., to carry food from the kitchen to tables). Tr. 23:9-19, 33:5-34:11, 315:21-23, ' 335:11-19, 414:2-415:13; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 17; Caravantes Deck ¶ 16; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 18; Flores Decl. ¶ 19; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 19; Leon Decl. ¶ 18; Lugo Decl. ¶ 19; Roballo Decl. ¶ 19; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 19; Salinas Decl. ¶¶ 18-19; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 19; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 17. However,.when, this occurs during a shift, stockers spend.no more than approximately five to 15 minutes running food. Tr. 116:16-117:5, 335:15-19, 415:14-22; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 17; Caravantes Decl. ¶ Í6; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 18; Flores Decl. if 19; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 19; Leon Deck ¶ 18; Lugo Deck ¶ 19; Roballo Deck ¶ 19; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 19; Salinas Deck ¶ 19.

5. Coffee Preparer

The coffee preparer’s primary duty is to, make coffee and tea. Alvarado Deck ¶ 29; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 23; Caravantes Deel. ¶ 26; Cedeño Decl; ¶ 26; Flores Decl. ¶ 28; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 26; Leon Decl. ¶ 27; Lugo Deel. ¶ 26; Roballo Decl. ¶ 27; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 26; Salinas Decl. ¶ 26; Urgiles Decl. ¶26; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶24. Additional responsibilities include: (1) bringing cups, glasses, ice, milk, and assorted ingredients to the coffee station; (2) cutting lemons, bread, and butter; and (3) filling sugar containers. Tr. 137:24-138:2, 138:21-139:11; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 24; Flores Decl. ¶28; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 26; Leon Decl. ¶ 27; Lugo Decl. ¶ 26; Roballo Decl. ¶ 27; Rodriguez Decl. 26; Salinas Decl. ¶ 26; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 26. The coffee station (i e., where the coffee preparer makes the drinks) is located in the kitchen. PI. Ex. 120 (photograph of coffee station); see also Tr. 14:3-8, 626:4-15. With respect to the preparation of coffee and tea and the delivery of those beverages to customers, the Court adopts the majority of Plaintiffs’ version of the facts. During the dinner shift, the coffee preparer, as the only employee assigned to the coffee station, not only makes coffee and tea, but also delivers these drinks to customers. Tr. 365:15-17; Amezquita Decl. ¶24; Flores Decl. ¶ 29; Francisco Lopez Decl. 27; Leon Decl. 27; Lugo Decl. ¶ 27; Roballo Decl. ¶ 28; Rodriguez Decl. ¶27; Salinas Decl. ¶28; Urgiles Decl. ¶27. During the lunch shift, by contrast, the coffee preparer is often assisted by a designated coffee helper. Tr. 18:14-19:1, 141:7-12, 305:23-306:15, 363:5-365:17; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 24; Cedeño Decl. ¶26; Flores Decl. ¶ 29; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 27; Leon Decl. ¶ 27; Lugo Decl. ¶ 27; Roballo Decl. ¶ 28; Rodriguez Decl. 27; Salinas Decl. ¶ 28; Urgiles Decl. ¶27. When this occurs, the coffee preparer spends almost all of his time at the coffee station making coffee and tea, while the coffee helper delivers the drinks to customers. Tr. 48:22-49:3, 50:15-51:1, 53:18-23, 54:4-55:1, 119:5-120:8, 142:8-146:5, 363:5-14, 365:24-366:19; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 24; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 26; Flores Decl. ¶ 29; Francisco Lopez Decl. If 27; Leon Decl. ¶ 27; Lugo Decl. ¶ 27; Roballo Decl. ¶ 28; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 27; Salinas Decl. ¶ 28; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 27. The coffee preparer spends no more than a few minutes delivering drinks to customers when he has a helper. Tr. 365:24-366:19. In addition, the coffee preparer is sporadically ordered by the chef to run food to customers. Tr. 20:5-21:18, 32:22-24, 55:2-14, 188:19-25, 221:21-222:13. However, when this occurs during a shift, the coffee preparer spends less than 10 minutes running food. Tr. 117:6-9.

D. Hours Worked

1. Before June 26, 2011

Prior to June 26, 2011, Fresco used a “shift pay concept” under which Plaintiffs were compensated for “a set number of hours depending on whether they worked a lunch or dinner shift.” A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 13; see also infra note 10. Thus, Defendants did not track the exact hours that Plaintiffs worked. Defendants did, however, keep records of Plaintiffs’ shifts. See PI. Ex. 26 (weekly shift schedules); PI. Ex. 77 (“Busboy Calculation Sheets”); Def. Ex. A (weekly shift schedules). Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants contest the accuracy of these records. Accordingly, the Court accepts these records as correct for the purpose of determining the shifts that Plaintiffs worked prior to June 26, 2011.

In the absence of records detailing their exact hours, Plaintiffs provided estimates of the length' of their shifts. Plaintiffs asserted that prior to June 26, 2011, a busser’s: (1) lunch shift typically lasted five and a half hours, Tr. 57:10-59:4, 64:8-21, 130:21-131:4; Caravantes Decl. ¶ 30; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 30; Flores Decl. ¶ 35; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 32; Leon Decl. ¶ 34; Roballo Decl. ¶ 33; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 32; Salinas Decl. ¶ 31; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 31; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 28; (2) weekday dinner shift typically lasted seven and a half hours, Caravantes Decl. ¶ 31; Flores Decl. ¶ 36; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 33; Leon Decl. ¶ 33; Roballo Decl. ¶ 34; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 33; Salinas Decl. 32; Ur-giles Decl. ¶ 32; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 29; and (3) Saturday dinner shift typically lasted eight and a half hours, Roballo Decl. ¶ 35; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 34; Salinas Decl. ¶ 33; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 34. Alvarado, the only Plaintiff who regularly worked as a runner prior to June 26, 2011, estimated that his lunch shift typically lasted four and a half or four and three quarters hours and his dinner shift typically lasted six and a half hours. Tr. 228:15-232:16; Alvarado Decl. ¶¶ 31-32.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ estimates should not be credited because they exceed the average length of shifts after June 26, 2011 (ie., when Fresco implemented a time clock system, see infra Section II.D.2). Plaintiffs, by contrast, claim that the average length of shifts decreased markedly after this date. See Tr. 59:2-71:5, 130:21-137:20, 232:6-24, 254:6-14, 254:24-255:11, 296:9-297:3, 346:15-348:1, 360:22-361:15, 486:11-487:25. The Court credits Plaintiffs and finds that the hours that Plaintiffs worked after June 26, 2011 are not coextensivé with the hours that Plaintiffs worked prior to June 26, 2011. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ estimates regarding the lunch shift are consistent with the number of hours for which bussers and runners were compensated prior to June 26, 2011. See infra Section II.E.3.a. And Plaintiffs’ estimates regarding the dinner shift are consistent with the Restaurant’s hours of operation. See, e.g., Vosilla Aff. ¶ 6 (noting that Fresco’s “kitchen closes by 11 PM and the guests aré usually gone by that time”). Defendants have thus failed to “negative the reasonableness” of Plaintiffs’ estimates. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946); see also infra Section III.C. Accordingly, the Court accepts Plaintiffs’ estimates for the purpose of determining the amount of uncompensated work, if‘any, that Plaintiffs performed prior to June 26, 2011.

2. After June 26, 2011

On June 26, 2011, the Restaurant implemented a punch-in-punch-out time clock system. Tr. 597:18-24, 610:5-19, 658:2-5; A. Scotto Aff. ¶¶ 13, 15; Alvarado Decl. ¶¶34, 39, 41; Amezquita Decl. ¶¶28, 31; Caravantes Decl. ¶¶33, 38, 42; Cedeño Decl. 34-36; Flores Decl. ¶¶ 41, 43; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 34, 41; Leon Decl. ¶¶ 39, 41; Lugo .Decl. 35, 38; Roballo Decl. ¶¶ 36, 41; Rodriguez Decl. 37, 40; Salinas Decl. ¶¶ 39, 41; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶35, 40, 42. Thus, Plaintiffs’ hours have been recorded in the time clock system — which generates “punch reports,” PI. Exs. 13-24 — since that time. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants contest , the accuracy of the “in” and “out” times listed on the punch reports. Accordingly, the Court accepts this information as correct for the purpose of calculating the hours that Plaintiffs worked .after June 26, 2011. Plaintiffs do, however, challenge the accuracy of the figures listed in the “total” column on the punch reports. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the figure listed in the “total” column is approximately 19 minutes, less than the actual amount of time between the recorded “in” and “out” times. A review of the punch reports verifies Plaintiffs’ claim as of the dinner shift on July 1, 2011. Pl. Ex. 24 at 1776; see also generally PI. Exs. 13-24. Moreover, at trial, Anthony Scotto admitted this miscalculation and explained that it was the result of a flaw in the time clock system. See Tr. 611:16-612:6. The Court, therefore, concludes that, beginning with the dinner shift on July 1,2011, the figures listed in the .“total” column on the punch reports undercount the length of Plaintiffs’ shifts by approximately 19 minutes.

In addition, Leon, Roballo, and Urgiles claim that the punch reports do not show all of the -hours that they worked because they were directed by Drill to not punch in for several shifts. Tr. 161:25-164:3; Leon Decl. ¶ 43; Roballo Decl. ¶ 44; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 45. Fresco’s records support these claims. For example, the “Busboy Calculation Sheet” for the week ending December 29, 2012 notes that Urgiles received $181 in'tips for a dinner shift on-December 24, 2012. PI. Ex. 77 at 9009. Urgiles’ punch report, - however, does not indicate that he-punched in or out on that date. PI. Ex. 24 at 1781. The Court, therefore, credits Leon, 'Roballo, and Urgiles’ testimony that they worked hours beyond those recorded in the time clock system.

3. Family Meal

Fresco serves a “family meal” for employees during'both the lunch and dinner shift. Jt. Stip. if 15. This has been the Restaurant’s practice before and after June 26, 2011. • The family meal is scheduled at fixed times — from 10:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. for the lunch shift and from 4:30 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. for the dinner shift. Id. No work is performed during family meals, Tr. 87:12-22, 223:16-224:6, 462:13-17; A. Scotto Decl. ¶ 42; Vosilla Decl. ¶ 11, and employees are permitted to leave the Restaurant if they choose, Tr. 87:23-24, 224:7-227:1; A. Scotto Decl. ¶ 44; Vosilla Decl. ¶ 11.

E. Compensation

1. Wages

From May 2007 until July 24, 2009, Plaintiffs then-employed at Fresco’ were generally paid wages at the rate of $4.60 per hour. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 35; Cara-vantes Decl. ¶ 34; Flores Decl.1I 37; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶37; Leon Decl. ¶ 35; Salmas Decl. ¶ 35; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 36; Xo-chipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 31; see also PI. Exs. 1-12 (Plaintiffs’ “Employee Earnings Records”). From July 25, 2009 until January 7, 2011, Plaintiffs then-employed at Fresco were generally paid wages at the rate of $4.65 per hour. Alvarado Decl. ¶ 36; Ca-ravantes Decl. ¶ 35; Flores Decl. ¶ 38; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶38; Leon Decl. ¶ 36; Roballo Decl. ¶ 38; Salmas Decl. 36; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 37; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 32; see also PI. Exs. 1-12. Beginning on January 8, 2011, this rate increased to $5-00 per hour. Alvarado Decl. 38; Amezquita Decl.. ¶ 29; Caravantes Decl. 36; Cedeño Decl. ¶ 32; Flores Decl. ¶ 39; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 39; Leon Decl. ¶ 37; Lugo Decl. ¶ 36; Roballo Decl. ¶ 39; Rodriguez Decl. ¶35; Salinas Decl. ¶ 37; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 38; see also PI. Exs. 1-12.

2. Tips

Plaintiffs were also compensated in tips. Specifically, Plaintiffs participated in the Restaurant’s “tip pool,” whereby tips received from customers during a shift are distributed amongst the bussers, barbacks, Stockers, the coffee preparer, runners, waiters, and the floor captain pursuant’to a point-based system. Alvarado Decl. ¶¶ 51-52; Amezquita Decl. ¶¶ 42-43; Caravantes Decl. ¶¶ 53-54; Cedeño Decl. ¶¶ 47-48; Flores Decl. ¶¶ 53-54; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 51-52; Leon Decl. 54-55; Lugo Decl. ¶¶ 49-50; Roballo Decl. ¶¶ 50-51; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 50-51; Salinas' Decl. ¶¶ 54-55; Urgiles Decl. ¶¶ 54-55; Xochi-pilteeatl Decl. ¶¶ 45-46. The tip pool participants are assigned the following points: (1) 0.5 points for bussers, barbacks, and stackers; (2) 0.6 points for the coffee preparer; (3) 0.75 points for runners; (4) 1.Ó point for waiters; and (5) 0.5 or 1.5 points for the floor captain. Tr. 387:11-22; A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 8; PI. Ex. 79 (“Tip Out Work Sheets”). Drill participated in the tip pool until December 31, 2012. Jt. Stip. ¶ 17. Vosilla never participated. A. Scotto Aff, 33. However, prior to June 2011, Vosilla did receive 15 percent of the 20 percent service charge- imposed oh private parties (ie., three percént of the bill), Jt. Stip. ¶ 16, when he served as a’ party captain. Tr. 670:19-24; Vosilla' Aff. ¶ 32-33; A. Scotto Decl. ¶ 34. The remaining 85 percent of the service charge (ie., 17 percent of the bill) went into the tip pool. Jt. Stip. ¶ 16. Since June 2011, Fresco has imposed a 17 percent charge for gratuity and a three percent “administration fee” on private parties. Vosilla Aff. ¶ 31; see also A. Scotto Aff. Ex. 1-J (private party receipt indicating a “SUBTOTAL” of $2,898.00, an “Admin” fee of $85.89, and a “GRATUITY” of $486.71). The, 17 percent charge goes into the tip pool, whereas the administration fee goes to the party captain! Tr. 670:25-671:4; Vosilla Aff. ¶ 31; see also M. Scotto Aff. Ex. 3-A (Fresco private party confirmation forms .stating; inter alia, that: (1), “17% of the food and beverage cost will be added to your account, as a gratuity and will be fully distributed- to the members -of the service staff”; (2) “3% of the food and beverage cost will be added to your account as a[n] administration fee used to-offset costs associated with the administration of the party”; and (3) “[t]his 3% is not a gratuity and will not be distributed to members of the service staff’).. Vosilla receives the three percent administration fee when he serves as a party captain. Vosilla Aff, Y33; A. Scotto Aff. 1134.

3. Hours

a. Before June 26, 2011

From January 2007 until November -8, 2008, the Restaurant paid bussers and runners for five and a half hours of work for lunch shifts and seven hours of work for dinner shifts. GelmamAff. ¶ 33, Def. Ex. M; PI. Ex.-76 at 1293-1326 (ADP ‘‘Payroll Worksheet” for week ending November 8, 2008); Pl. Ex. 77 at 1307 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for week ending November 8, 2008). From November 10, 2008. until January 10, 2009, the. Restaurant paid bus-sers and runners for five hours of work for lunch shifts and six hours of work for dinner shifts. Pl. Ex. 76 at 2282-93, 2498-2511 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for weeks ending November 15, 2008 and January 10, 2009); Pl. Ex. 77 at 2280, 2514 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for weeks ending November 15, 2008 and January 10, 2009). From January 12, 2009 until December 4, 2010, the Restaurant paid bussers and runners for five hours of work for both lunch and dinner shifts. Tr. 654:17-20; Gelman Aff. ¶¶ 34-35; Pl. Ex. 76 at 2254-65, 5435-46 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for weeks ending January 17, 2009 and December 4, 2010); Pl. Ex. 77 at 2268, 5447 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for weeks ending January 17, 2009 and December 4, 2010). From December 6, 2010 until June 25, 2011, the Restaurant paid bussers and runners for five hours of work for lunch shifts and six hours of work for dinner shifts. Gelman Aff. ¶35; Pl. Ex. 76 at 4604-15, 5408-19 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for weeks ending December 11, 2010 and June 25, 2011); Pl. Ex. 77 at 4617, 5420 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for weeks ending December 11, 2010 and June 25, 2011).

However, the Restaurant did not always adhere to this compensation scheme. In particular, the Restaurant never compensated bussers and runners for more than 40 hours of work in a given week. For example, during the week ending May 3, 2008, Caravantes worked four lunch shifts and four dinner shifts, Flores worked two lunch shifts and six dinner shifts, Francisco Lopez worked three lunch shifts and four dinner shifts, and Salmas worked four lunch shifts and three dinner shifts. Pl. Ex. 77 at 903 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for week ending May 3, 2008). In accordance with Fresco’s compensation scheme, Caravantes, Flores, Francisco Lopez, and Salinas should have been paid for 50,- 53, 44.5, and 43 hours of work, respectively. Instead, they were each paid for 40 hours of work. Pl. Ex. 76 at 894-902 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for week ending May 3, 2008). Likewise, during the week ending December 13, 2008, Salinas worked five lunch shifts and six dinner shifts. Pl. Ex. 77 at 2399 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for week ending December 13, 2008). Thus, he should have been paid for 61 hours of work. Instead, he was paid for 40 hours of work. Pl. Ex. 76 at 2385-97 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for week ending December 13, 2008). During the week ending October 2, 2010, Flores worked three lunch shifts and six dinner shifts, and Roballo worked four lunch shifts and five dinner shifts. Pl. Ex. 77 at 3834 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for week ending October 2, 2010). Therefore, they should have each been paid for 45 hours of work. Instead, they were paid for 40 hours of work. Pl. Ex. 76 at 3822-33 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for week ending October 2, 2010). During the week ending February 12, 2011, Caravantes worked five lunch shifts and five dinner shifts. Pl. Ex. 77 at 5178 (“Busboy Calculation Sheet” for week ending February 12, 2011). Under Fresco’s compensation scheme, he should have been paid for 55 hours of work. Instead, he was paid for 40 hours of work. PL Ex. 76 at 5163-76 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for week ending February 12, 2011). At trial, Natasha Gelman, Fresco’s bookkeeper, testified that the Restaurant did not always adhere to its purported compensation scheme because Anthony Scotto instructed Gelman to pay bussers and runners for 40 hours of work even when they worked eight or more shifts in a week. Tr. 657:2-11, 659:23-660:18.

b. After June 26, 2011

Since June 27, 2011, Fresco has paid bussers and runners based on the hours recorded in the time clock system. Specifically, the Restaurant compensates employees each week for the total amount of time listed on the weekly payroll report. Tr. 658:2-659:18. Like the punch reports, the weekly payroll reports accurately reflect employees’ “in” and “out” times, but, as of the dinner shift on July 1, 2011, undercount the length of employees’ shifts by approximately 19 minutes. See generally PI. Ex. 78 (weekly payroll reports). On occasion, the Restaurant has also paid bussers and runners for shifts worked without punching in — namely, where the “Busboy Calculation Sheet” notes that an employee received tips for a shift but neither the punch report nor weekly payroll report shows any recorded time. Tr. 661:24-662:9; see also Gelman Aft. ¶¶ 13, 17-19. For example,' Urgiles’ punch report and the weekly payroll report for the week ending December 29, 2012 indicate that Urgiles only worked' a 4.37-hour lunch shift on December 28, 2012. PL Ex. 24 at 1781; PL Ex. 78 at 9043. The “Busboy Calculation Sheet” for that week, however, notes that Urgiles received $181 in tips for a dinner shift on December 24, 2012. Pl. Ex. 77 at 9009. And, as reflected on the. “Payroll Worksheet,” the dinner shift was taken into account because Fresco paid Urgiles for 12.54 hours of work for the week. PL Ex. 76 at 9004 (ADP “Payroll Worksheet” for week ending December 29, 2012).

F. Notice

1. Compensation Discussions

Anthony Scotto claims in his trial affidavit that he “meet[s] with all new hires to explain how much and how often they will be paid by the [R]estaurant” and that, in doing so, he “explain[s] how the tipped minimum wage rate works, ie., that they will be paid additional makeup pay if they do not earn enough tips.” A. Scotto Aff. ¶ 9. With the exception of Amezquita, each Plaintiff states in his trial declaration that “[w]hen [he] was hired[,] no one discussed with [him] what [his] pay would be, and if [he] would be paid at a rate below the regular minimum wage rate because [he] would be receiving tips.” Alvarado Deck ¶4; Caravantes Decl. ¶5; Cedeño Deck ¶ 5; Flores Deck ¶ 5; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 6; Leon Deck ¶ 4; Lugo Deck ¶ 5; Roballo Deck 6; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 5; Salinas Deck ¶ 5; Urgiles Deck ¶ 5; Xoehi-piltecatl Deck ¶5. Although no live testimony was offered on this issue, based on these Plaintiffs’ credibility on other issues, the Court accepts their account and does not credit Anthony Scotto’s claim regarding compensation discussions with new employees.

2. Government Posters

Adjacent to a stairwell in the kitchen, Fresco displays government posters that include information in small print about “employee rights, payroll, hourly wages, sick pay, [and] sick day[s].” Tr. 625:7-25; see also Pl. Ex. 119 (photographs of government posters).

3. Written Notices

Since March 2011, the Restaurant “has provided' food runners and bussers written notice of the hourly and overtime pay rates applicable to tipped food service employees at least once a year and/or at the time of hire.” Jt. Stip. ¶ 14; see also PI. Exs. 30, 32, 38, 40, 44, 46, 50, 54, 58, 61, 65, 68 (“For food service workers, the tip credit taken will be $2.25 per hour. Accordingly, you will be paid a tipped minimum wage of $5.00 per hour, and an overtime rate of $8.63.”). These notices “explain that food service workers who do not receive sufficient tips to make up the difference .between the tipped and full minimum wage and overtime hourly rates will be paid additional wages to make up the difference.” Jt. Stip. ¶ 14; see also PI. Exs, 30, 32, 38, 40, 44, 46, 50, 54, 58, 61, 65, 68 (“If you do not receive enough tips over the course of a week to bring you up to the minimum hourly rates of $7.25 for the first 40 hours and $10,875 per hour for hours over 40, you will be paid additional wages that week to make up the difference.”). Fresco provided English-only notices until July 2012, when the Restaurant began issuing notices in both English and Spanish. Jt. Stip. ¶ 14; see also PI. Exs. 30, 32, 38, 40, 44, 50, 54, 58, 61, 65, 68.

4. Wage Statements

Since at least January 2007, the Restaurant has given bussers and runners a wage statement with each payment, Alvarado Deck ¶ 102; Amezquita Decl. ¶ 93; Cara-vantes Deck ¶ 96; Cedeño Deck ' ¶ 93; Flores Deck ¶ 109; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 97; Lugo Deck ¶ 101; ■ Rob'allo Deck ¶ 103; Rodriguez , Deck ¶ 106; Salinas Deck ¶ 108; Urgiles Deck ¶ 111; Xochipil-tecatl Deck ¶ 85; see also PI. Exs. 82-87 (sample wage statements). The statement includes the following information: (l)'the pay period date; (2) the employee’s name; (3) the Restaurant’s name and address; (4) the employee’s pay rate; (5) the employee’s hours worked; (6) the amount of tips the employee received; (7) deductions; and (8) the employee’s gross and net wages. PI. Exs. 82-87. It does not include any information about allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage. Id.; Alvarado Deck ¶ 102; Amezquita Deck ¶ 93; Caravantes Deck ¶ 96; Cedeño Deck ¶ 93; Flores Deck ¶ 109; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 97; Lugo-Deck 101; Roballo Deck ¶ 103; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 106; Salinas Deck ¶ 108; Urgiles Deck ¶ 111; Xo-chipiltecatl Deck ¶ 85.

G. Uniforms and Crumbers

At Fresco, bussers and runners are required to wear particular clothing while at work. Specifically, they must wear a bub-ton-down shirt and tie in designated colors, black dress pants, black dress shoes, and a black belt. Tr. 110:24-111:3; Alvarado Deck ¶ 91; Amezquita Deck if 84; Cara-vantes Deck ¶ 87; Cedeño Deck ¶ 84; Flores Deck ¶ 98; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 87; Leon Deck ¶ 93; Lugo Deck ¶ 93; Roballo Deck ¶ 91; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 95; Salinas Deck ¶ 96; Urgiles Deck ¶ 100; Xochipiltecatl Deck ¶ 80. During their employment, Plaintiffs purchased the requisite shirts and ties directly from the Restaurant by paying Gelman in cash. Tr. 111:7-114:13, 243:6-11, 425:8-426:20; Alvarado Deck ¶ 93; Amezquita Deck ¶ 85; Ca-ravantes Deck if 88; Cedeño" Deck ¶ 86; Flores Deck If 100; Francisco Lopez Deck ¶ 89; Leon Deck ¶ 95; Lugo Deck ¶ 95; Roballo Deck ¶ 93; Rodriguez Deck ¶ 97; Salinas Deck ¶ 98; Urgiles Deck ¶ 102; Xochipiltecatl Deck ¶81. Plaintiffs had to purchase two new shirts and one new .tie approximately every six months. Tr. 243:20-245:7, 246:18-247:12; Alvarado Decl. ¶ 95; Caravantes Decl, 89; Flores Decl. ¶ 102; Francisco Lopez Decl. 91; Leon Decl. ¶ 97; Lugo Decl. ¶ 96; Roballo Decl. ¶ 95; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 99; Salinas Decl. ¶ 100; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 104; Xochipil-tecatl Decl. ¶83. In addition, Plaintiffs had to purchase crumbers, Amezquita Decl. ¶ 86; Flores Decl. ¶ 101; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 90; Leon Decl. ¶ 96; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 98; Salinas Decl. 99; Urgiles Decl. ¶ 103; Xochipiltecatl Decl. ¶ 82, and plastic collar stays for the shirts, Alvarado Decl. ¶ 94; Flores Decl. ¶ 101; Francisco Lopez Decl. ¶ 90; Leon Decl. ¶ 96; Robal-lo Decl. ¶ 44; Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 98; Xochi-pilteeatl Decl. ¶ 82. They were not reimbursed for these purchases.

III. Conclusions of Law

A. Marion Seotto’s Liability

An individual may be held liable under the FLSA if she is an “employer,” which the statute defines as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). The Second Circuit has adopted an “economic reality” test to determine whether an individual meets this definition. Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1516, 188 L.Ed.2d 450 (2014). Under this-test, courts consider “whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.” Id. at 104-05 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “No one of the four factors standing alone is dispositive,” however, and the “totality of the circumstances” must be considered. Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir.1999). “[T]he overarching concern is whether the alleged employer possessed the power to control the workers in question, with an eye to the ‘economic reality’ presented by the facts of each case.” Id: (citation omitted). Thus, “[evidence that an individual is an owner or officer of a company, or otherwise makes corporate decisions that have nothing to do with an employee’s function, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘employer’ status.” Irizarry, 722 F.3d at 109. “Instead, to be an ‘employer,’ an individual defendant must possess control over a company’s actual ‘operations’ in a manner that relates to a plaintiffs employment.” Id.

Here, there is no evidence that Marion Scotto:. (1) has the power to hire and fire employees (although she may offer her opinion on prospective hosts and hostesses); (2) supervises and controls employees’ work schedules or employment conditions; (3) determines the rate and method of employee compensation; or (4) maintains employment records. See supra Section II.A.3.b. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that Marion Scotto is their employer because she:, (1) sometimes gives bussers directions; (2) is typically present at the Restaurant every day that it is open; (3) is the chief executive officer, president, and majority shareholder of Starjem; (4) signs employees’ paychecks; (5) is considered to be a “boss” by Plaintiffs; (6) was described on Fresco’s website as “[k]nown affectionately as ‘The Boss’”; (7) stated that she “run[s] front-of-the-house duties” at Fresco, Tr. 682:17-20; and (8) provided input with respect to Fresco’s “Policy Document.” PI. Post-Trial Mem. 43-44, EOF No. 92. The Court is not persuaded. First, an individual does not become an employer merely by directing employees to carry out tasks related to customer service. Second, Marion Scotto’s daily presence at the Restaurant reveals nothing about her level of authority. Third, it is well-settled that “[ojwnership, or a stake in a company, is insufficient to establish that an individual is an ‘employer’ without some involvement in the company’s employment of the employees.” Irizarry, 722 F.3d at 111. Marion Scotto had no such involvement. Fourth, although “the authority to sign paychecks” is “key” to determining whether an individual is an employer, “[t]his— like all factors — is not dispositive.” Id. at 115 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, Marion Scotto only signs paychecks because “[e]ach check has to be signed by two of the [Restaurant’s] owners.” M. Scotto Aff. 9-10. She is otherwise not involved in employee compensation. .Thus, the fact that she signs paychecks is not probative in this case. Fifth, Plaintiffs’ belief that Marion Scotto is a “boss” does not make her an employer. See, e.g., Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 253, 314 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (explaining that “[plaintiffs] perception that [defendant] is an ‘owner’ does not make him an employer”); Chao v. Vidtape, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 281, 291 (E.D.N.Y.2002), aff'd as modified, 66 Fed.Appx. 261 (2d Cir.2003) (summary order) (finding testimony that “most [employees] thought [defendant] was a ‘boss’ when asked” to be “insufficient to support a definition of employer. under the economic realities test”). Sixth, the use of the sobriquet “The Boss” on Fresco’s website — which. apparently is a reference to Max-ion - Scotto’s “on-air personality,” Tr. 527:4-20, 682:17-683:3 — does not make her an employer. Seventh, Marion Scotto explained that “run[ning] front-of-the-house duties” primarily involves “helping] with the reservations, greeting] the people as they come in the door,” and checking in with customers when they leave the Restaurant. Tr. 683:7-21. These responsibilities do not show control over Plaintiffs’ employment. Finally, her input concerning the “Policy Document” was limited to information about artwork in the Restaurant, Tr. 536:10-538:10, 685:3-7, which “ha[s] nothing to do with an employee’s function” and is, consequently, “insufficient to demonstrate ‘employer’ status,” Irizarry, 722 F.3d at 109. In sum, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Marion Scotto is not Plaintiffs’ employer under the FLSA or the NYLL. Accordingly, she may not be held liable with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims.

B. Tip Credit

The FLSA and the NYLL require an employer to. pay its employees at least minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); N.Y. Lab. Law § 652(1). However, both statutes also “permit an employer to pay a tipped [employee] a cash wage that is lower than the statutory minimum wage, provided that[, inter alia,] the cash wage and the employee’s tips, taken together, are at least equivalent to the minimum wage.” Inclan v. New York Hosp. Grp., Inc., 12 Civ. 4498, 95 F.Supp.3d 490, 497, 2015 WL 1399599, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m), 206(a)(1); N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 146-1.3(b); id. § 137-1.5 (repealed eff. Jan. 1, 2011)). This.allowance is known as a “tip credit.”

1. Notice

An employer may not take a tip credit under the FLSA" unless the employer has “inform[ed] the employee of the [statute’s] tip credit provision.” Copantitla, 788 F.Supp.2d at 287 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), This requirement is “strictly construed, and must be satisfied even if the employee received tips at least equivalent to the minimum wage.” Chung v. New Silver Palace Rest., Inc., 246 F.Supp.2d 220, 229 (S.D.N.Y.2002). The employer “bear[s] the burden of showing that [it] satisfied the FLSA’s notice requirement by, for example, providing [the] employee[ ] with a copy of- § 203(m) and informing [the employee] that [her] tips will be used as a 'credit against the minimum wage as permitted by law.” He v. Home on 8th Corp., 09 Civ. 5630, 2014 WL 3974670, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the employer cannot show that it has informed [the] employee[ ] that tips are being credited against [her] wages, then no tip credit can be taken and the employer is liable for the full minx-mum-wage.” Inclan, 95 F.Supp.3d at 497, 2015 WL 1399599, at *4 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).

The regulations implementing the NYLL also impose notice requirements with respect to the tip credit. Under the current regulations, an employer may not take a tip credit unless the employer has given the employee written notice stating: (1) the amount of tip credit to be taken from the basic minimum .hourly rate; and (2) that extra pay is required if tips are insufficient to bring the employee up. to the basic minimum hourly rate. N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 146-2.2(a); see also id. § 146-1.3 (“An employer may take a credit towards the basic minimum hourly rate if [the tipped employee] receives enough tips and if the employee has been notified of the tip credit: as required in section 146-2.2 of this Part.”). The employer must provide the notice in English and “any other language spoken by the .., employee as his/her primary language.” Id. § 146-2.2(a).

Prior to . January 1, 2011, the written notice requirement of § 146-2.2 was not yet in effect.' Nevertheless, an employer could not take a tip credit unless “certain preconditions [we]re met.” Copantitla, 788 F.Supp.2d at 290 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Specifically, an employer was required to; (1) “furnish to [the] employee a> statement with every payment of wages listing ... allowances ... claimed as part of the minimum wage,” N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 137-2.2 Repealed eff. Jan. 1, 2011); and (2) “maintain and preserve for not less than six years weekly .payroll records ... for [the] employee [showing] ... allowances ... claimed as part of The minimum wage,” id. § 137-2.1(a) (repealed eff. Jan. 1, 2011); see also, e.g., Copantitla, 788 F.Supp.2d at 290.

Applying these principles, the Court finds that Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit against Plaintiffs’ wages under the FLSA prior to July 2012. As an initial matter, 'Plaintiffs were not orally informed about their compensation generally or the tip credit specifically when they began working at Fresco. See supra Section II.F.l. Moreover, the written notices that Defendants provided beginning in March 2011, see supra Section II.F.3, did not adequately apprise Plaintiffs of the tip credit provision because the notices were in English only and Defendants have offered no evidence that Plaintiffs — all of whom testified at trial in Spanish with the assistance of an interpreter — were sufficiently literate in English to be informed by the notices. See, e.g., Chan v. Sung Yue Tung Corp., 03 Civ. 6048, 2007 WL 313483, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2007) (finding written tip credit notice to be insufficient under the FLSA “because it is in English, a.language that few of the plaintiffs can read”). Finally, the Court rejects Defendants’ contention that the government posters displayed at Fresco, see supra Section II.F.2, satisfied the FLSA’s notice requirement. Although “[a] generic government, poster could inform employees that minimum wage obligations exist, [it] could not possibly inform employees that their employers intend to take the tip credit with respect to their salary.” Copantitla, 788 F.Supp.2d at 289.

Defendants were likewise not entitled to take a tip credit under the NYLL prior to July 2012. First, the written notices provided beginning in March 2011 did not cornply with § 146-2.2 because they were in English only and Plaintiffs’ primary language is Spanish. N.Y. Comp.Codes R, & Regs. tit. 12, § 146-2.2(a). Second, prior to January 1, 2011, Defendants failed to “furnish to [Plaintiffs then-employed at Fresco] a statement with every payment of wages listing ... allowances .., claimed as part of the minimum wage.” Id. § 137— 2.2 (repealed eff. Jan. 1, 2011). Indeed, the wage statements issued by Defendants, see supra Section II.F.4, “show only that [Plaintiffs earned tip-related income; they do not record that any of the tip income was claimed as part of the minimum wage,” Copantitla, 788 F.Supp.2d at 290.

2. Tip Sharing

The FLSA provides that “an employer may not avail itself of the tip credit if it requires tipped employees to share their tips -with employees wh