Belizaire v. Rav Investigative & Security Services Ltd. (61 F. Supp. 3d 336, 2014)

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2014-11-21

Labor

Citations

Full opinion text

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:

Defendant RAV Investigative and Security Services, Ltd., has not appeared in this action. A default judgment was entered against it on June 19, 2013. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman to conduct a damages inquest. (Dkt. No. 13.) Judge Freeman conducted a thorough and careful inquest and issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) that this Court award damages as specified in the Report and permit the Plaintiff to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 29.) The Court has reviewed the Report.

No party filed a timely objection to the Report; therefore the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1988) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 Fed.Appx. 76, 77 (2d Cir.2008). Magistrate Judge Freeman’s well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. ■

Accordingly, damages are awarded as calculated in the Report and Belizaire is permitted to amend his complaint to remedy the pleading defects specified in the Report.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE J. PAUL OETKEN, U.S.D.J.:

This matter is currently before the Court for a damages inquest on a judgment entered in favor of pro se plaintiff Sainslot Belizaire (“Plaintiff’) against defendant RAV Investigative and Security Services, Ltd. (“Defendant”), on Plaintiffs employment-related claims. (See Dkt. 13.) For the reasons that follow, I recommend (1) that Plaintiff be awarded damages calculated as set out below, and (2) as to certain claims that Plaintiff has not supported with sufficient factual allegations to justify a damages award, that he be permitted to amend his Complaint to remedy the pleading defects.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on November 8, 2012, alleging that Defendant had discriminated against him based on his national origin and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and the New York State Human Rights Law (“HRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. (See Dkt. 2.)

According to his Complaint, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a security guard on January 14, 2009, and was assigned to a work site at New York University (“NYU”), where he checked students’ identification. (Compl., at 8, 8.) He had excellent attendance and job performance. (See id.) Plaintiff worked five days per week until approximately August 2011, when his schedule was reduced, without notice, to four days per week. (Id. at 9.) On the days that he was scheduled, Plaintiff worked an eight-hour shift, with one half-hour break. (See Tr., at 29-30; see also Dkt. 17-1 at 18, 19 (earnings statements showing that Plaintiff worked 37.5 hours per week during pay periods in 2009 and 2010).) Throughout his employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs wage was $8.00 per hour. (Id.)

Plaintiff claims, however, that Defendant did not pay him in either a timely manner or in the correct amount. (See Compl., at 3, 8.) In this regard, Plaintiff asserts that, although his salary was to be paid “weekly,” Defendant’s payroll checks were “regularly delayed two. or three weeks apart.” (Belizaire Aff., at 1.) Moreover, according to Plaintiff, the payroll checks frequently bounced (Compl., at 8); he asserts that Defendant generally waited about six weeks to replace a bounced payroll check, and that there would frequently be insufficient funds in the company’s account to pay the replacement check as well (see Tr., at 10-12, 16-17). Plaintiff also contends that, while other employees were permitted to take vacation annually, Defendant never permitted him to do so. (Compl., at 3; see also id. at 8 (Plaintiff alleging, in attached administrative complaint, that he “never received a vacation or a day off as everyone else did”).)

Plaintiff, at 51 years old, was the oldest employee and the only employee of Haitian national origin at his work site. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff asserts that he never saw another employee treated in the same manner that he was treated. (Id. at 9.)

In December 2011, when Plaintiff received three paychecks from Defendant that were returned by the bank due to insufficient funds, he reported the issue to the Department of Labor. (See id. at 9.) On December 30, 2011, he also returned three bounced checks to Defendant and asked to be paid by certified check. (Id.) Then, on January 2, 2012, operations manager Terry Greenidge called Plaintiff, informed him that he no longer worked at NYU, and directed the police to escort him off the premises. (See id. at 8-9.) Defendant never called Plaintiff to work at any other site. (Id. at 9.) Defendant still owed Plaintiff wages at the time of Plaintiffs termination (see Tr., at 38), but Plaintiff did not receive any wages from Defendant thereafter (see id. at 39).

B. Procedural History

On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights and, through that agency, with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that Defendant had subjected him to unlawful discrimination in his employment and termination from employment, as a result of his national origin and age, and in retaliation for his filing of a complaint against Defendant with the Department of Labor. (See Compl., at 8-10.) On September 28, 2012, having “adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge,” the EEOC informed Plaintiff that it was closing its case file and advised Plaintiff of his right to sue in federal court. (Id. at 5-7.)

Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in this case on November 8, 2012 (Dkt. 2), along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), which was granted (see Dkt. 4). Service was effected on Defendant by the U.S. Marshals Service on April 5, 2013. (See Dkt. 9.) Defendant’s answer to the Complaint was therefore due on April 26, 2013 (see id.), but, to date, Defendant has neither filed an answer, nor otherwise appeared in this proceeding.

The Clerk of Court entered Defendant’s default on May 10, 2013 (see Dkts. 10, 11), and Plaintiff moved for a default judgment the same day (see Dkt. 12). On June 14, 2013, the Court (Oetken, J.) directed the entry of a default judgment against Defendant and referred the matter to this Court for an inquest on damages. (See Dkt. 13.) A default judgment against Defendant was entered on June 19, 2013. (See Dkt. 14.) On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff wrote to this Court, requesting that the default judgment be “implement[ed]” and that Defendant be ordered to pay damages and interest in the amount of $385,000 (see Dkt. 15), and this Court then set a schedule for Plaintiff to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning his damages (see Dkt. 16). In particular, this Court directed Plaintiff to explain how he calculated any damages figures and to support his damages with an affidavit and documentary evidence. (See id.) The Court also cautioned Defendant that, if it failed to respond to Plaintiffs submission or to contact the Court by October 16, 2013 to request a hearing, this Court intended to issue a report and recommendation on the basis of Plaintiffs written submission alone. (See id.)

Plaintiff timely submitted an affidavit and supporting documentation, as well as an affirmation of service. (See Dkts. 17, 18.) Plaintiffs affidavit, however, provided few facts or allegations not contained in the Complaint, and the supporting documents he submitted consisted only of the following:

(a) a copy of a letter from the New York State Department of Labor, dated December 6, 2012, stating that Plaintiffs case had been referred to an investigator (see Dkt. 17 at 6);

(b) copies of several documents related to Plaintiffs denial of public benefits in February and March of 2012 (see id. at 7-14);

(c) copies of two notices from Chase Bank, each indicating that a particular check issued from Defendant to Plaintiff was being returned due to insufficient funds (see id. at 15, 20);

(d) copies of two letters from Plaintiff to Defendant demanding reissuance of paychecks that did not clear due to insufficient funds (see Dkt. 17-1 at 1, 23-24); and

(e) copies of 10 checks (and what appears to be 42 check stubs, and five backs of checks) apparently issued by Defendant, ranging in amount from $160.08 to $471.30; it appears that three of the checks were returned by a bank without explanation; two others were returned for the explicit reason (as indicated by the code “NSF”) that the account had insufficient funds to cover the checks; and three others were marked “replacement ck” (see Dkts. 17,17-1).

When Defendant’s deadline to oppose Plaintiffs submission passed without any opposition having been filed by Defendant, Plaintiff wrote to alert the Court. (See Dkt. 20.) On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff again wrote to the Court, urging that damages be awarded to him, as Defendant “seem[e]d to have deliberately trampled all legal proceedings” related to his case. (Dkt. 21.) On February 28, 2014, in order to obtain clarification of the documents presented by Plaintiff and the basis for his claim for $885,000 in damages, this Court issued an Order scheduling an inquest hearing. {See Dkt. 28.)

On March 26, 2014, this Court held an inquest hearing, at which Plaintiff testified and submitted additional documentary evidence. {See Tr.; Dkt. 26.) As Plaintiff did not have the benefit of counsel, the Court attempted to elicit testimony from him that would assist the Court in ascertaining his damages; in this regard, the Court asked Plaintiff questions concerning, inter alia, the frequency with which Defendant had issued bad checks to him {see Tr., at 6), whether Defendant had ever issued valid replacement checks for those checks that did not initially clear {See id. at 10, 16-18, 38), which of the copies of paychecks and stubs that he had submitted represented checks that had not cleared {see id. at 13-14, 54), whether individuals similarly situated to him had received vacation time, sick time, and other benefits that were allegedly denied to him {see id. at 21-30), and the type of emotional distress that he had suffered {see id. at 57-62).

As Plaintiffs testimony was often vague, and as Plaintiff indicated that he could provide a written submission detailing his calculation of the damages due to him and explaining the significance of the documents already submitted {see id. at 18-19), this Court afforded Plaintiff an additional opportunity to substantiate his damages. By Order dated April 24, 2014, the Court specifically directed Plaintiff to supplement his written submissions and oral testimony with details about his unpaid wages and benefits, emotional distress, and the back pay he was claiming. {See Dkt. 27.) Defendant did not appear at the March 26, 2014 hearing, but, as the Court subsequently realized that its Order scheduling that hearing had been mailed to an incorrect address for Defendant, the Court advised Defendant, in its April 24, 2014 Order, that Defendant should notify the Court within three weeks, should it wish to be heard on the appropriate scope of damages.

Plaintiff timely supplemented his prior submissions with new documents, including a letter from a physician (Dkt. 28 at 2), a letter regarding his current employment status {id. at 3), rent receipts from February 1, 2012 through May 1, 2014 {id. at 5-12), and emails that appear to be related to his search for employment {id. at 17-30). In addition, Plaintiff resubmitted documents related to his denial of public benefits. {See id. at 13-16.) While Plaintiff also included a short spreadsheet purporting to itemize his damages — with line items for three years of salary (less “late payments received”); a claimed denial of assistance by the Human Resources Administration (listed as “HRA cash assistance request”); Plaintiffs supposed rent arrears; his claimed lost Social Security benefits; his claimed lost severance pay, vacation pay, and sick pay; and a figure for “retaliation value” {see id. at 4) — Plaintiff did not provide evidence from which the Court could verify most of the figures listed on the spreadsheet, and he did not provide any further explanation or clarification of his prior submissions.

Defendant neither filed an opposition to Plaintiffs supplemental submission, nor otherwise contacted the Court.

DISCUSSION

I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Default Judgment

Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party defaults when it “has failed to plead or otherwise defend” against a judgment for affirmative relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). There is no question that-“default is an admission of all well-pleaded allegations against the defaulting party,” Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir.2004), and that “a default judgment entered on well-pleaded allegations in a complaint establishes a defendant’s liability,” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 69 (2d Cir.1971), rev’d on other grounds, 409 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 647, 34 L.Ed.2d 577 (1973). Thus, as a general matter, a district court must accept as true all of the factual allegations of the non-defaulting party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir.2009).

The court, however, “need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action,” Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir.1981), but is instead “required to determine whether the [plaintiffs] allegations establish [the defendant’s] liability as a matter of law,” Finkel, 577 F.3d at 84.; Taizhou Zhongneng Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Koutsobinas, 509 Fed.Appx. 54, 56 (2d Cir.2013) (summary order). Accordingly, a court must consider whether the complaint alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and find it lacking where the complaint “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement,’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955); see TAGC Management, LLC v. Lehman, Lee & Xu Ltd., 536 Fed.Appx. 45, 47 (2d Cir.2013) (on appeal from a grant of default judgment, analyzing the legal sufficiency of the allegations under the standards enunciated in Twombly and Iqbal). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

In evaluating a pro se complaint, a court is not limited to the causes of action specified by the plaintiff, but instead “must construe it liberally, applying less stringent standards than when a plaintiff is represented by counsel,” Branham v. Meachum, 71 F.3d 626, 628-29 (2d Cir.1996), and must construe it to raise the strongest claims it suggests, see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006) (collecting authority). The court is charged with the obligation to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, a pro se plaintiff is not required to articulate the appropriate legal theory under which relief may be granted, but instead must only allege sufficient facts to make out an actionable claim. See, e.g., Soto v. Walker, 44 F.3d 169, 170 (2d Cir.1995) (finding that district court erred by interpreting pro se complaint as based solely on the theory of relief raised most directly by plaintiffs allegations, where “the facts [plaintiff] alleged clearly describe an actionable due process violation,” and reversing dismissal of complaint); see also Bey v. Welsbach Elec. Corp., No. 01cv2667 (LAP), 2001 WL 863419, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2001) (construing pro se complaint to include additional cause of action, separate from the legal grounds for relief that plaintiff had articulated, where plaintiff had set forth facts that could give rise to the additional claim).

In employing this liberal standard, however, a court must still ensure that the pro se complaint “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957))).

B. Damages

In conducting an inquest on default, a court accepts as true all of the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to damages. Au Bon Pain Corp., 653 F.2d at 65. A plaintiff must therefore substantiate a claim with evidence to prove the extent of damages. See Trehan v. Von Tarkanyi, 63 B.R. 1001, 1008 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (plaintiff must introduce evidence to prove damages suffered and the court will then determine whether' the relief flows from the facts (citing Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.1974))). If a plaintiff fails to demonstrate its damages to a reasonable certainty, then the court should decline to award any damages, even where liability has been established through default. See Lenard v. Design Studio, 889 F.Supp.2d 518, 538 (S.D.N.Y.2012); Griffiths v. Francillon, No. 10cv3101 (JFB)(GRB), 2012 WL 1341077, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1354481, at *2 (Apr. 13, 2012).

Where a defaulting defendant has not made any submission on a damages inquest, the court must assess whether the plaintiff has provided a sufficient, basis to determine damages, see Transatl. Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir.1997) (the court “should take the necessary steps to establish damages with reasonable certainty”), and may determine the adequacy of the plaintiffs damages claim based on the plaintiffs submitted proofs, see, e.g., Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Hernandez, No. 04cv2081 (LAP)(DF), 2008 WL 4974583, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008). In its discretion, the court may also hold a hearing to assess the amount of damages that should be awarded on a default. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); see also Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir.1993) (judges are given much discretion to determine whether an inquest need be held); Action S.A v. Marc Rich & Co., 951 F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir.1991) (Fed. R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) “allows but does not require ... a hearing”); Fustok v. Conti-Commodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1989) (“[b]y its terms, [Rule] 55(b)(2) leaves the decision of whether a hearing is necessary to the discretion of the district court”).

Regardless of the submitted proofs or testimony, though, damages awarded upon a defendant’s default “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). While the Second Circuit has not specifically addressed what might constitute damages that “differ in kind,” courts in this jurisdiction have interpreted the Rule 54(c) requirement to turn on defendant’s receipt of adequate notice of the scope of damages. See, e.g., Gucci America, Inc. v. Gold Center Jewelry, 997 F.Supp. 399, 404 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (“The rationale for the rule, insofar as it applies to default judgments, ‘is that default is tantamount to consent to the entry of judgment, but this consent is effective only to the extent that it was duly informed.’ ” (quoting 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.71, at 54-127 (3d ed. 1997))); Capgemini U.S., LLC v. EC Manage, Inc., No. 10cv2486 (GBDXHPD), 2012 WL 5931837, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2012) (where ad dam-num clause requested $1,000,000 “plus interest,” “the Complaint put the defendants on notice that they could be liable for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 once interest was computed,” and therefore interest award would not violate Rule 54(c)), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 5938590 (Nov. 27, 2012).

Thus, courts have strictly construed the damages provisions of complaints awarding damages on default. See, e.g., Marina B Creation S.A. v. de Maurier, 685 F.Supp. 910, 912-13 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (declining to award treble damages requested in memorandum of law where such damages were not specified in either complaint or notice of motion for default); Jowers v. DME Interactive Holdings, Inc., No. 00cv4753 (LTS)(KNF), 2006 WL 1408671, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2006) (declining to award statutory liquidated damages where “the complaint did not give notice that [plaintiff] was seeking liquidated damages by making a citation to the applicable provisions of New York’s Labor Law”); New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Quantum Const., No. 06cv13150 (GEL)(JCF), 2008 WL 5159777, at *4, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2008) (“damages should be limited to the time period set forth in the [e]omplaint”). As discussed in greater detail in Section III, infra, however, such strict construction may not be appropriate in the case of a pro se plaintiff. See Poliard v. Saintilus Day Care Ctr., Inc., No. 11cv5174 (MKB)(LB), 2013 WL 1346238, at *5 n. 9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013) (“Although the ‘Wherefore’ clause does not explicitly state that plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest, in light of plaintiffs pro se status and her reliance on a form complaint distributed by the Clerk’s Office, this Court liberally construes plaintiffs complaint to include a request for pre-judgment interest here.”), ■ report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1346398 (Apr. 2, 2013).

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Without a response from Defendant, this Court must first determine whether, with respect to each element of his claims, Plaintiffs allegations in the Complaint are sufficiently “well pleaded” to establish Defendant’s liability. See City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir.2011); Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 854 (2d Cir.1995). Only if the allegations are sufficient to state a claim, should the Court then proceed to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. In conducting this analysis, this Court is mindful that it must construe Plaintiffs submissions liberally, as he is acting pro se, see Triestman, 470 F.3d 471, 474, and must accept all of the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Finkel, 577 F.3d at 84.

A. National Origin and Age Discrimination Claims

Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants mistreated him, on account of his national origin and/or age, by: (1) failing to pay him, or paying him late and/or with bounced checks; (2) prohibiting him from taking vacation days or other days off; (3) reducing his work schedule from five days per week to four days per week, without notice; (4) failing to promote him; and (5) terminating his employment either dis-criminatorily or in retaliation for Plaintiffs opposition to Defendant’s other discriminatory acts. (See Comph, at 2-3.) The Complaint identifies Title VII, the ADEA, and the NYSHRL as the legal bases for Plaintiffs discrimination claims. (See Compl., at 1.)

Title VII provides that it shall be unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s ... national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Pursuant to the ADEA, it is also unlawful to engage in such discriminatory employment practices because of the employee’s age, see 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), where the employee is at least 40 years old, id. § 631(a). The NYSHRL, for its part, broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, national origin and age. See N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(l)(a).

As a threshold matter, each statute applies only to employers of a particular size: Title VII applies to employers with at least 15 employees “for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (holding that the “threshold number of employees for application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiffs claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue”); the ADEA applies to employers with at least 20 employees over the same period, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b); and, except for the employment of domestic workers, the NYSHRL applies to employers with at least four employees, see N.Y. Exec. L. § 292(5).

Plaintiff does not specifically allege the number of employees that Defendant employed. This Court, however, may take judicial notice of the information contained on Defendant’s own website, see Doron Precision Systems, Inc. v. FAAC, Inc., 423 F.Supp.2d 173, 179 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of information publieally announced on a party’s website, as long as the website’s authenticity is not in dispute and ‘it is capable of accurate and ready determination.’ ” (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b))), representing that Defendant has over 100 corporate and field staff members. Given these representations, the Court can take judicial notice of Defendant’s size and conclude that Defendant meets the threshold size requirements of Title VII, the ADEA, and the NYSHRL.

To state a cause of action for discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA, or the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position or performed it satisfactorily; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir.1994) (collecting cases decided under Title VII, the ADEA, and other anti-discrimination statutes); Donohue v. Finkelstein Memorial Library, 987 F.Supp.2d 415, 424 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (“Claims of employment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law are generally analyzed under the same substantive standards that govern claims under Title VII.” (citation omitted)); see also Hagan v. City of New York, No. 13cv1108 (JPO)(DF), 39 F.Supp.3d 481, 494, 2014 WL 4058067, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) (noting that “[t]he elements of a prima facie case can help provide an outline of what is necessary to render [the plaintiffs] claims for relief plausible” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). An “adverse employment action,” within the meaning of these statutes, is “a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment,” such as “termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices unique to a particular situation.” Sanders v. N.Y.C. Human Res. Admin., 361 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotations arid citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the first three substantive elements of a discrimination claim under Title VII, the ADEA, and the NYSHRL. First, he was at all relevant times a member of a “protected group” with respect to both national origin and age. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) (national origin); 29 U.S.C. § 631(a) (age 40 and older); N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(l)(a) (national origin and age). Born in 1960, Plaintiff was over 40 years old throughout his employment with Defendant (see Compl., at 3), and he is also of Haitian national origin (id. at 3, 8). Second, Plaintiff asserts that his attendance and job performance as a security guard were “excellent.” (Id. at 8.) Third, each of the actions that Plaintiff alleges Defendant took against him — paying his wages late and with bad checks, prohibiting him from taking leave, reducing his work schedule from five to four days per week, failing to promote him, and terminating his employment — could constitute an actionable adverse employment action, as a “materially adverse change in the terms and conditions” of employment with Defendant. See Caskey v. County of Ontario, 560 Fed.Appx. 57, 58-59 (2d Cir.2014) (summary order listing, as examples of adverse employment actions, “termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, ... [and] a material loss of benefits”); Robinson v. Goulet, 525 Fed.Appx. 28, 30-31 (2d Cir.2013) (summary order finding that the plaintiff, a black woman, had plausibly stated a claim for unlawful discrimination, where, inter alia, her work hours were reduced, while male and white employees did not experience similar reductions); Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210, 226-27 (2d Cir.2004) (describing elements of 'prima facie claim under Title VII for discriminatory failure to promote).

With respect to the fourth and final element, that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent, the sufficiency of Plaintiffs pleadings varies. Plaintiff claims that he was the oldest employee at the NYU work site, the only employee of Haitian national origin, and the only one mistreated by Defendant. (See Compl., at 9.) He further asserts a belief that his national origin and age were reasons for the disparate treatment. (Id.) Although “more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group” may support an inference of discrimination, Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, 502 (2d Cir.2009), superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir.2013), this Court finds that it would be unreasonable to draw a blanket inference of discriminatory intent from Plaintiffs allegations, and instead separately addresses each adverse action purportedly taken by Defendant.

1. Failure to Promote

Plaintiff has pleaded no particular facts to support his bare allegation that Defendant discriminatorily failed to promote him. He has not alleged, for example, that Defendant rejected him for any positions for which he applied, or even that any higher-level positions were available during the course of his employment. Indeed, the only indication in Plaintiffs form Complaint that he suffered discrimination in this regard is the check mark that Plaintiff placed next to “Failure to promote me” in the section of the form listing types of discriminatory conduct and directing the author to check those that apply. (Compl., at 2-3.) With respect to this aspect of Plaintiffs claim, then, the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to render his assertion that Defendant discriminatorily failed to promote him “plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Thus, in this Court’s view, Plaintiff has not established Defendant’s liability as a matter of law, under Title VII, thg ADEA, or the NYSHRL, for Defendant’s failure to promote him. See Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d at 137.

2. Reduction of Work Schedule

Plaintiff alleges that his work schedule was reduced, without notice, in August 2011. (Compl., at 9.) Plaintiff, however, has pleaded no facts in support of his claim that this reduction in hours was discriminatory, such as facts suggesting that other employees, who were similarly situated, did not have their work schedules altered. On the contrary, Plaintiff has alleged at least some facts that suggest that the reduction in his work schedule may have been attributable to an attendance issue; specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the adjustment to his schedule was. made after he returned from a four-day absence, during which he had “asked a co-worker to cover for [him].” (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege whether his absence was approved by Defendant, whether it was permissible for him to ask a co-worker to handle his work for him, or even whether the coworker actually did cover the work.

In these circumstances, and without any further factual allegations to support Plaintiffs claim of discrimination, this Court concludes that it would be unreasonable to infer that Defendant, after employing Plaintiff continuously for over two and a half years, suddenly reduced his hours because of his Haitian national origin or age. Given that Plaintiffs Complaint, as pleaded, does not support “more than a sheer possibility” that Defendant reduced his hours in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, or NYSHRL, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, this Court recommends finding that Defendant cannot currently be held liable on this aspect of Plaintiffs discrimination claims.

3. Termination of Employment

Likewise, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that, in terminating Plaintiffs employment, Defendant acted with discriminatory animus based on Plaintiffs national origin and/or age. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated shortly after making complaints to the Department of Labor and to Defendant regarding Defendant’s pay practices. It would be unreasonable to infer, from these allegations alone, that Plaintiffs termination was discriminatory in nature. Plaintiffs pleading is therefore inadequate to entitle him to relief for unlawful termination in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, or the NYSHRL.

4. Unpaid and/or Late Wages and Denial of Benefits

Unlike Plaintiffs other discrimination claims, his claims regarding Defendant’s failure to pay wages due (and/or to make timely payment of his wages), as well as his 'claim for denial of vacation and/or sick days, are not based on discrete events but rather appear to be based on conduct that allegedly continued throughout his employment. For that reason, it could be inferred that the disparate treatment he experienced was because he was Haitian and/or because he was older than the other employees, as those are characteristics that differentiated him from his co-workers, who were allegedly treated more favorably throughout the same time period.

Plaintiffs additional allegations, however, undermine the reasonableness of that inference with respect to his claim that he was discriminatorily denied vacation or other time off from work. In particular, Plaintiff states that, “whenever [he] requested leave,” Defendant informed him that “there was no one to replace [him].” (Compl., at 8.) Plaintiff does not suggest that there was another security guard available to cover for him or that other security guards were permitted to take leave in or around the same time periods in question. Nor does Plaintiff provide any factual allegations capable of suggesting that Defendant’s stated, non-diserimi-natory reason for denying him leave, whether on one occasion or on a recurring basis, was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot conclude that any regular denial by Defendant of Plaintiffs requested vacation time or other leave was rooted in discriminatory animus, and finds that Plaintiff has currently failed to state a claim under Title VII, the ADEA, or NYSHRL with respect to a discriminatory denial of vacation or similar benefits.

In contrast, by alleging that Defendant repeatedly failed to pay, and/or delayed the payment of his wages, and that he, as the only one of Defendant’s employees of his national origin and age, was the only one of Defendant’s employees who was subjected to this treatment (see Compl., at 8-9), Plaintiff has — if barely — pleaded circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent. Although Plaintiffs allegations of disparate treatment are thin, this Court concludes that they are sufficient, in the inquest context, to entitle him to potential relief under Title VII, the ADEA, and/or the NYSHRL. In light of the discussion above, this Court also concludes that this is the only discrimination claim that Plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently to warrant the Court’s consideration of damages.

B. Retaliation in Violation of Anti-Discrimination Statutes

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, because he “opposed discrimination,” he was “subject to unlawful discriminatory actions” (Compl., at 3), which may give rise to a claim for retaliation under the anti-discrimination statutes. To establish retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, or the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show (1) that he participated in a protected activity, (2) that his employer was aware of the protected activity, (3) that his employer took adverse employment action against him, and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Hanig v. Yorktovm Cent Sch. Dist., 384 F.Supp.2d 710 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (applying federal law) (citing Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713, 719 (2d Cir.2002)); Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312-13, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 (2004) (applying state law). “The term ‘protected activity’ refers to action taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination,” Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir.2000) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3), superseded by statute on other grounds, and may take the form of either formal or informal complaints, Conway v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.Supp.2d 450, 466 (S.D.N.Y.2006). To constitute protected activity, the plaintiffs conduct “ ‘must [have] put the employer on notice that the [plaintiff] believe[d] that discrimination [was] occurring.’ ” Id. (quoting Ramos v. City of New York, No. 96cv3787 (DLC), 1997 WL 410493, at *3, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10538, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997)).

In this case, the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint, even if true, are insufficient to establish that he engaged in any protected activity {i.e., action in opposition to discrimination based on his age or national origin) while he was employed by Defendant. Based on his Complaint and the attached administrative charge, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (and the EEOC) on January 17, 2012 (Compl., at 3,10), over two weeks after Defendant had terminated his employment. Although Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2011 — shortly before he was fired — he complained to both the Department of Labor and to Defendant regarding his bounced paychecks {id. at 2), he does not allege that he complained of any discriminatory conduct, which would constitute protected activity under the anti-discrimination statutes. Thus, while Plaintiffs allegations, liberally construed, may be sufficient to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under the federal or state labor laws (see infra at Section D), this Court recommends finding that he has failed to state a claim for retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, or the NYSHRL.

C. Wage Claims

Although Plaintiff expressly asserts dis- - crimination claims, the primary conduct about which he complains is Defendant’s purported failure to pay his wages fully and on time, and Defendant’s firing him after he complained about bounced paychecks. Even though Plaintiff did not cite any labor laws in his pro se Complaint, these allegations make it clear that Plaintiff has raised wage claims and retaliatory discharge claims that logically fall under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. L. §§ 190, et seq., and that warrant this Court’s analysis.

The FLSA sets federal minimum wage, overtime pay, equal pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards for employers. 29 U.S.C. §§■ 201 et seq. Its applicability is limited to employees who are “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” or who are “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). As noted above, this Court may take judicial notice of the information that Defendant holds out as true on its publicly available website, which indicates that Defendant maintains offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; that it is also licensed in Connecticut, California, and Florida; that it provides, among other security services, armed courier service and pre-employment screening; and that it has over 100 staff members. {See n. 8, supra.) From these facts, it could reasonably be inferred that Defendant is an “enterprise” within the meaning of the FLSA, see 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(l), as at least some of its employees (such as those responsible for courier services) would appear to be engaged in commerce, and the business would almost certainly require more than $500,000 in gross revenue simply to make payroll for over 100 employees.

The minimum wage applicable to an employee in New York is governed by an interplay of the FLSA and the NYLL. For the period of Plaintiffs employment, the FLSA established a federal statutory minimum wage for covered employees of $6.55 per hour (from July 24, 2008 through July 23, 2009), and then $7.25 per hour (from July 24, 2009 forward). 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(l)(B)-(C). For the same period, the NYLL set a state minimum wage, but, where the federal minimum wage was higher, the federal minimum wage controlled. N.Y. Labor L. § 652(1) (eff. Dec. 6, 2004 to Mar. 28, 2013) (for the period on and after January 1, 2007, setting the minimum wage at $7.15 per hour “or, if greater, such other wage as may be established by federal law pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 206”). Thus, when Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on January 14, 2009, the applicable state minimum wage was $7.15 per hour, see id., and on July 24, 2009, it increased to $7.25 per hour,'see 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C) (increasing federal minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25, 24 months and 60 days after May 25, 2007).

Both the FLSA and the NYLL also govern, in different respects, the timing of payments from an employer to an employee. While the statutory language of the FLSA does not prescribe any particular payment schedule, courts have consistently interpreted Section 206(a) of the statute to include a prompt payment requirement. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); see also, e.g., Rogers v. City of Troy, N.Y., 148 F.3d 52, 57 (2d Cir.1998) (“it is clear that the FLSA requires wages to be paid in a timely fashion”); United States v. Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487, 491 (2d Cir.1960) (“While the FLSA does not expressly set forth a requirement of prompt payment, such a requirement is clearly established by the authorities.... ”); Rigopoulos v. Kervan, 140 F.2d 506, 507 (2d Cir.1943) (“[The FLSA overtime provision] plainly contemplates that overtime compensation shall be paid in the course of employment and not accumulated beyond the regular payday.”). For its part, the statutory language of the NYLL specifically addresses timing of payment of wages: employers must make payments of wages timely, see N.Y. Labor L. § 191(1), and clerical and other workers must be paid “in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than semi-monthly, on regular pay days designated in advance by the employer.” N.Y. Labor L. § 191(l)(d). After a worker’s employment is terminated, the employer “must pay the wages not later than the regular pay day for the pay period during which the termination occurred.” Id. § 191(3).

Plaintiff here alleges that he “never received [his] payroll check in a timely manner, or in the correct amount,” as Defendant “had the habit of paying [him] with bounced checks.” (Compl., at 3, 8.) This allegation appears to encompass at least three interrelated problems with Plaintiffs pay. He appears to be alleging that (1) he was regularly unpaid, or underpaid, by Defendant (i.e., that Defendant did not pay him the agreed-upon (i.e., “correct”) amount for which Plaintiff was to be paid for his work); (2) Defendant often delayed in providing his paychecks; and (3) many of the paychecks provided by Plaintiff bounced, thereby causing further underpayment or delay in payment.

Accepting these allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, this Court understands that, on at least some occasions, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at all for some of the hours he worked, in violation of the minimum wage requirements set forth by both the FLSA, see 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1), and the NYLL, see N.Y. Labor L. § 652(1).. In addition, to the extent Defendant de-. layed making payments to Plaintiff, either by failing to issue him paychecks on a regular basis or by issuing checks that were returned for insufficient funds, Defendant failed to comply with the FLSA’s prompt payment requirement, see 29 U.S.C. § 206(a), and similarly failed to pay Plaintiff “in accordance with the agreed terms of employment,” in violation of Section 191(l)(d) of the NYLL. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to establish Defendant’s liability under the FLSA and NYLL, both for unpaid wages and for late payments made to Plaintiff as a result of delayed or bounced payroll checks.

D. Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of Labor Laws

While Plaintiff did not explicitly plead retaliatory discharge in violation of federal and state labor laws, the facts alleged in his Complaint potentially give rise to such claims and therefore merit consideration by this Court. Under the FLSA, an employer may not “discharge or in any other manner discriminate' against an employee because such employee has filed a complaint or instituted any proceeding under [the FLSA]...'.” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FLSA, a plaintiff must show “(1) participation in a protected activity known to the defendant; (2) an employment action disadvantaging the plaintiff; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 628 F.Supp.2d 447, 472 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Second Circuit has held that making a complaint to one’s own employer, as opposed to making a complaint to a government agency, is not a “protected activity” within the meaning of the FLSA. Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 55, (2d Cir.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1325, 179 L.Ed.2d 379 (2011).

The NYLL’s anti-retaliation provision is somewhat broader in scope than the FLSA’s. Under the NYLL, an employer may not retaliate against any employee, including by discharging the employee, because “such employee, has made a complaint to his or her employer, or to the commissioner or his or her authorized representative, ... that the employer has engaged in conduct that the employee, reasonably and in good faith, believes violates any provision of this chapter.” N.Y. Lab. L. § 215(l)(a)(i). A plaintiff must plead that “while employed by the defendant, [the plaintiff] made a complaint about the employer’s violation of the law and, as a result, was terminated or otherwise penalized, discriminated against, or subjected to an adverse employment action.” Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 253, 302 (S.D.N.Y.2011).

Plaintiffs factual allegations are sufficient to make out a retaliation claim under the NYLL, but not under the FLSA. While Plaintiff here has alleged that, in December 2011, he complained to the Department of Labor that Defendant had issued him paychecks without sufficient funds “on several occasions” (Compl., at 9), he has not alleged that Defendant had any knowledge of this complaint, nor has he pleaded facts from which this Court could infer such knowledge. Plaintiff, therefore, has not established that he engaged in a “protected activity known to the defendant” Torres, 628 F.Supp.2d at 472 (emphasis added), as required to state a retaliatory discharge claim under the FLSA.

Plaintiff has, however, established that he engaged in activity protected by the NYLL. Plaintiff alleges that, on December 30, 2011, he returned three bounced checks to Defendant and requested to be paid by certified check (Compl., at 9), and that his employment was terminated very shortly thereafter, on January 2, 2012. {See id.) As internal complaints are explicitly covered by the NYLL, see N.Y. Lab. L. § 215(l)(a)(i), Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to plead that he engaged in activity protected under that statute. Further, the temporal proximity between Plaintiffs internal complaint and the termination of his employment is sufficient to give rise to an inference of a causal connection between the two. Cf. Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 200 F.Supp.2d 151, 162 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (denying summary judgment where plaintiffs employment was terminated within two weeks of her complaints to defendant of a labor law violation). Based on the substance of Plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations, this Court finds that he has stated a claim for retaliatory discharge under the NYLL.

III. DAMAGES

To summarize the above, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a factual basis for claims that:

(1) by denying Plaintiff timely payment of wages, Defendant violated (a) relevant discrimination laws — including Title VII, the ADEA, the NYSHRL (and, if the Complaint is construed to include it, the NYCHRL), and (b) the payment provisions of the FLSA and NYLL; and

(2) by terminating Plaintiffs employment in retaliation for his internal complaint regarding the fact that he was “paid” wages with checks that bounced, Defendant violated the NYLL.

As also discussed above, however, while Plaintiff laid out a sufficient factual basis for each of these claims in his pro se Complaint, he did not necessarily specify each of their legal bases; indeed, he made no mention of any labor law in his pleading. In the inquest context, this requires the Court to address the tension between its obligation to read a pro se complaint liberally to contain all causes of action suggested by the facts raised, Soto, 44 F.3d at 170, and its obligation under Rule 54(c) to ensure that a defaulting defendant has received proper notice of the damages that may be awarded against it, so as to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to defend the suit. While, in awarding damages on default judgments, courts have strictly construed the ad damnum clauses of complaints (see supra at Section 1(B)), it is this Court’s view that applying too narrow a reading of a Plaintiffs pleading here would be inappropriate, as a pro se plaintiff should not lose the benefit of a liberal construction of his complaint simply because the defendant has chosen not to appear. Where the facts alleged in a pro se complaint are sufficiently clear to put the defendant on notice that a cause of action not explicitly stated may be fairly implied, a defaulting defendant risks being held liable for damages on those claims.

In this case, it should again be stressed that, although Plaintiff did not explicitly plead claims under the FLSA and NYLL, the Complaint clearly — and indeed primarily — alleges facts regarding compensation sufficient to provide Defendant with the requisite notice. In particular, Plaintiff complains that he “never received [his] payroll check in a timely manner, or in the correct amount,” that he “did report that to the [Department] of Labor,” and that “later on [he] was fired.” (Compl., at 3.) As the Complaint thus plainly alleges labor law violations, this Court concludes that Defendant was on adequate notice that damages could be awarded on such claims. In addition, and as explained further below, given that the types of damages recommended here are all available under the various statutes that Plaintiff did invoke, the recommended damages (even including certain liquidated damages), should not be found, in this particular ease, to “differ in kind” from the relief demanded in the Complaint.

This Court does note, however, that the damages that it is recommending on Plaintiffs well-pleaded claims are less than what Plaintiff seeks, in large measure because the documentation he has submitted in support of his damages does not demonstrate the reasonableness of the amounts requested. While this Court is sensitive to Plaintiffs assertion that it has been “tremendously difficult” for him, acting pro se and without the benefit of discovery, to piece together his payment history (see Dkt. 28 at 1) and otherwise present his evidence, this does not relieve him of his burden to demonstrate the damages due to him with “reasonable certainty,” Transatl. Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir.1997). Despite being given three separate opportunities to explain and substantiate his claims for damages — through two written submissions, and through evidence taken by the Court at the inquest hearing— Plaintiff has provided only piecemeal and confusing documentation with minimal explanation, and only the very vaguest of testimony. Several of the payment documents that Plaintiff has submitted are incomplete or duplicative. Other documents he has provided to the Court appear to be simply irrelevant, and Plaintiff has not offered any explanation as to why they should be viewed as having any bearing on his claim for damages.

Given the disorganized manner in which Plaintiff has presented copies of his payment documentation, including paychecks, stubs, and check backs — out of chronological sequence, photocopied with some documents overlaying others, cut off, or even upside down — this Court has undertaken to create its own chart summarizing these documents, as best as the Court is able to discern their contents. This chart is attached to this report as Exhibit A, and will be referred to herein as “Court Ex. A.” On it, the Court has listed, where ascertainable, (a) the workweek for which payment was made (ie., the “week ending” date), (b) the date of the check, (c) the length of any delay between a and b, (d) the check number, (e) the check amount (ie., Plaintiffs pay, net of any withholding), (f) the type of document (ie., copy of a check, or an apparent check stub or back of a check), (g) any potentially relevant notation on the document (such as a notation indicating that the check had been returned for insufficient funds, or was a “replacement” check), and (h) the location where the document may be found in the record (ie., the Docket and page numbers). (See Court Ex. A.) While this chart does reveal some basis for an award of damages for Defendant’s late payments of wages to Plaintiff, the evidence falls far short of supporting Plaintiffs allegations regarding the frequency or extent of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

A. Damages for Unpaid and Late Wages

Plaintiff has stated claims relating to unpaid, and/or late wages under both the discrimination laws (where he couches the claim in terms of disparate treatment) and the labor laws. While compensatory damages are available under both types of statutes, the discrimination laws and the NYLL typically allow for an award of “actual damages” to compensate a plaintiff for the harm demonstrably resulting from the defendant’s unlawful practices, see 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(l); 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); N.Y. Exec. L. § 297(9); N.Y. Lab. L. § 198-a, whereas the FLSA, as explained further below, allows for compensation in the form of liquidated damages, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). As Plaintiff should not recover twice for the same injuries, nor be awarded damages different in kind from those sought in the Complaint, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(c), this Court will first assess the harm that Plaintiff has demonstrated and then address how damages should be awarded, so as to be consistent with both his pleading and the relevant statutes.

1. Unpaid Wages

Based on Plaintiffs claim that, during the period of his employment, Defendant never compensated him at all for at least some of his work, Plaintiff is certainly entitled to recover, at a minimum, the amount of any unpaid wages that he can establish with reasonable certainty. In response to this Court’s request for documentation of his damages, however, Plaintiff submitted, without explication, a hodgepodge of documents, from which this Court has been largely unable to discern the extent to which he was not paid for work he performed.

For instance, while Plaintiffs submission of paychecks contains gaps,, suggesting that there may have been periods of time when he worked, but received no pay (see Court Ex. A), Plaintiff has never stated as much. .Rather, the Court is left to speculate as to whether a gap in the submission means that Plaintiff was not paid, or that he just could not locate the documentation of his payments for the missing periods of time. Although, from the spreadsheet he provided, it appears that Plaintiff would have this Court believe that he typically received only one paycheck every five weeks and was therefore paid only $7,983 over the course of his.three years of employment with Defendant (see Dkt. 28 at 4), even the incomplete documentary evidence he has presented appears to contradict this assertion (see Court Ex. A; Dkts. 17, 17-1 (demonstrating that, during some periods, Plaintiff received paychecks each week)). Thus, the Court cannot credit this bare allegation.

Similarly, this Court is left to guess as to the extent to which Plaintiff was paid with checks that bounced and that were not replaced with reissued checks that then cleared. The documentation that Plaintiff submitted prior to the hearing seems to show, at most, eight checks that were returned by a bank (see Court Ex. A, at 1:12-14, 2:3, 2:9, 2:11, 3:2, 3:6), but, of those, one was not even made out to Plaintiff (see id. at 1:13 (check made out to “Avenue Check Cashing Corp.”)). Of the rest, it appears that Defendant eventually did issue replacement checks for at least four, covering the amounts of the original checks, plus incurred fees. (See id. at 2:3, 2:5 (returned check dated July 12, 2011, apparently replaced July 21, 2011); 2:9, 2:11, 2:13 (returned checks dated August 15, 2011 and September 14, 2011, apparently replaced September 23, 2011); and 3:2, 3:5 (returned check dated November 8, 2011, apparently replaced November 30, 2011).) As to the remaining three returned checks (id. at 1:12, 1:14, 3:6), the record is silent as to whether Defendant ever similarly repaid the amounts due, and, given the number of gaps in the record, this Court cannot merely assume that the absence of documentation means that repayment was not made.

As the record does not demonstrate, to any degree of certainty, the amount of wages owed to Plaintiff due to Defendant’s alleged “habit” of “paying [him] with bounced checks” and failure to pay “in the correct amount” (Compl., at 9), this Court does not recommend any award of damages on Plaintiffs claim for unpaid wages under either the discrimination or labor laws.

2. Late-Paid Wages

The documentation submitted by Plaintiff shows a bit more certainty in terms of occasions when his pay was delayed. -

First, even though the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff was eventually repaid for every paycheck that bounced, there would seem to be no doubt that, at a minimum, he suffered a delay in payment whenever one of his paychecks was returned by a bank, whether for insufficient funds or some other deficiency. As noted above, the record shows evidence of seven such paychecks, made out to Plaintiff and returned by a bank (Court Ex. A, at 1:12