Employment – Wages – FLSA

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has alleged that the defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to certain employees and unlawfully retained their tips, the plaintiff has plausibly alleged the existence of putative class and collective members whose claims could be resolved on a class-wide basis, so the defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations and dismiss the collective action allegations should be denied.

“This is a putative collective and class action lawsuit alleging that defendant Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc., a Korean barbecue and hot pot restaurant, and its leadership team failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to certain employees and unlawfully retained their tips. Plaintiff Dengtao Cao, also known as Phillip Cao, claims that the defendants’ actions violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (‘FLSA’), 29 U.S.C. §§203(m)(2)(B), 206, 207; Massachusetts’ minimum wage and overtime laws, M.G.L.c. 151, §§1, 1A; and the Tips Act, M.G.L.c. 149, §152A. He seeks to represent a collective for the FLSA claims, and two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the state law claims, composed of Hungry Pot employees who, like him, were allegedly undercompensated. Pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations and dismiss the collective action allegations. That motion will be denied, because Cao has plausibly alleged the existence of putative class and collective members whose claims could be resolved on a classwide basis. The defendants’ concerns about the breadth of the proposed collective and classes are premature and may be more appropriately raised after Cao has moved for class or collective certification. …

“At this juncture, the ‘dispositive question’ is not whether the complaint satisfies the dictates of Rule 23 but whether Cao ‘pleads the existence of a group of putative class members whose claims are susceptible of resolution on a classwide basis.’ … Because Cao has sufficiently alleged such classwide allegations, the answer is yes. The defendants’ motion to strike the class action allegations is, accordingly, denied. …

“… Whether the putative collective is overbroad, as the defendants maintain, is an issue that can be addressed if Cao moves for conditional certification of the collective. …”

Cao v. Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-342-25) (10 pages) (Kobick, J.) (Docket No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK) (June 24, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.