We reverse and remand for a determination of the appropriate relief for these employees. 2 29 U.S.C. s 201 et seq. [1] The purpose of the FLSA is to ‘eliminate low wages and long hours' and ‘free commerce from the interferences arising from production of goods under conditions that were detrimental to the health and well- being of workers.’ 3 The statutory scheme makes *1311 the wage and hour provisions applicable to ‘employees.’ Employee is defined as one ‘employed,’ and ‘employ’ is defined as ‘to suffer or permit to work.

However, the FLSA provides only for a two year statute of limitations in non-willful violations of the Act, a three year statute of limitations for willful violations. 29 U.S. Code at § 255 sets forth as follows: “Any action commenced on or after May 14, 1947, to enforce any cause of action for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or liquidated damages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act [1] — (a) if the cause of action accrues on or after May 14, 1947—may be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, and every such action shall be forever barred unless commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued; (emphasis added) The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 27, 2015. Angelica Velasquez ceased work in November of 2011, well more than three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter.

ECF No. 58. Exhibit A to the FAC identifies 138 purported house parents and assistant house parents.7 The Secretary claims to be seeking unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages for each of these individuals pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. 7 One individual never served as a house parent.

......................................................................................... 6 29 C.F.R. § 778.107 ........................................................................................................................ 6 29 C.F.R. § 778.110(a).................................................................................................................. 11 Case 3:15-cv-01506-GAG Document 55-2 Filed 04/06/17 Page 5 of 26 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Edward C. Hugler, Acting Secretary of Labor1, (“the Secretary”) hereby submits this memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment against Defendants Special Police Force Corp. and Hector Rivera Ortiz2 (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary judgment should be granted as there is no dispute that Defendants violated the minimum wage, overtime and record keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.) (“the Act”), and Defendants have no defense for their failure to compensate their employees in accordance with the Act. Specifically, the following material facts are undisputed: (1) Defendants admit that they failed to pay the proper overtime rate when employees worked more than forty hours in a single workweek; (2) Defendants admit that they made deductions from certain employees’ wages for the cost of uniforms that reduced their regular hourly rate of pay below the required rate of $7.25; (3) Defendants admit that they failed to keep records of the total amount of hours worked and straight time wages paid for each workweek; and (4) Defendant Rivera is individually liable for the violations alleged in the Complaint. The unpaid minimum wage and overtime amounts to $156,612.41 in back wages plus an equal amount in liquidated damages owed to 198 employees.

The following Claims are DISMISSED without prejudice: 1. Plaintiff’s minimum-wage and regular-rate claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), 43 Pa. Stat. §333.

“The principal congressional purpose in enacting the [FLSA] was to protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours, ‘labor conditions [that are] detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being or workers.’” (Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 US 728, 739 [1981], quoting from 29 USC § 201 [a].) It follows that the statute was adopted to protect workers, not businesses injured by low-wage competitors.

B. Salva, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company On June 15, 2012, John Salva, Ernest Clements, and Jerome Vinet, who were opt-ins in the Cunningham Action, commenced Salva, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 6:12- cv-06324-CJS, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (the “Salva Action”). Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), on behalf of themselves and individuals who had been employed by HP in the ITO Service Delivery, Services Information Development, and Technical Consulting job families at HP locations throughout the United States. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that they and other individuals employed by HP in the subject job families between June 16, 2009 to the present were not properly classified as exempt and were not paid overtime wages for hours worked over 40.

- 3 - Case 1:05-cv-04725-NGG-JO Document 56 Filed 05/07/07 Page 6 of 27 POINT III THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PLAINTIFFS’ EMPLOYERS AND ARE NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED UNPAID WAGES Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable for payment of Plaintiffs’ wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Laws. 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., New York Labor Law § 650 et seq. and N.Y.C.C.R. § 137. The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) defines “employer" to include any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.

Federal and state wage and hour laws provide ample avenues for employeesto seek relief for wage disputes. For decadesprior to Goonewardene, employees have been ableto seek redress for wage disputes via the comprehensive enforcement scheme,established by the Legislature, to enforce Labor Code and Wage Orderobligations. (See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201 et. seg.; 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et. seq.) If this Court reverses the court of appeal’s decision in Goonewardene, said system will continue to function as it has for decades and employees will continue to have remedies against their employers for wage disputes.

It is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., which arose prior to March 16, 2014 shall be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl.