Summary
This Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiff Alex Nadal’s motion for default judgment on claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan’s Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. The magistrate judge recommends awarding $192 in unpaid wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages, denying back pay and presently claimed emotional-distress damages, and requiring Plaintiff to indicate whether he seeks an evidentiary hearing on compensatory damages for retaliation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendants' default established liability for failing to pay Nadal minimum wages under the FLSA and MIWOWA.
- Whether Nadal was entitled to $192 in unpaid wages for two days of work.
- Whether Nadal was entitled to an equal amount in liquidated damages under the FLSA.
- Whether Nadal established entitlement to back pay for alleged FLSA retaliation when his employment ended before he engaged in protected activity.
- Whether Nadal established the amount of emotional-distress damages with reasonable certainty.
- Whether the court should require further proceedings under Rule 55(b)(2) concerning emotional-distress damages.
Holdings
- Defendants' default and Plaintiff's verified allegations and affidavits established liability for failing to pay Plaintiff for the two days he worked.
- Plaintiff established with reasonable certainty that he was entitled to $192 in unpaid wages.
- Plaintiff was entitled to an additional $192 in liquidated damages because Defendants did not assert or establish the FLSA good-faith defense.
- Plaintiff established liability for FLSA retaliation through his allegations that he complained about unpaid wages and was thereafter threatened and subjected to police involvement.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to the requested $28,800 in back pay because his employment was terminated before he engaged in protected activity, and he did not allege that the termination itself was unlawful.
- Plaintiff did not establish the amount of emotional-distress damages with reasonable certainty, although the verified complaint established retaliation liability.
Key quotations
“It is well-established that once a default is entered against a defendant, that party is deemed to have admitted all of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability.” (PageID.56)
“Inasmuch as Defendants have failed to assert the good faith defense, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages.” (PageID.57)
“Damages must be established with “reasonable certainty.”” (PageID.58)
Factual background
Nadal worked as a dishwasher and cleaner for Defendants for two days in September 2024. He worked six hours on each day at an agreed rate of $16 per hour, but Defendants paid him nothing and characterized the work as an unpaid testing and training period. After Defendants terminated him, Nadal complained about his unpaid wages and stated that he intended to seek legal counsel; Defendants allegedly threatened to have him arrested, contacted law enforcement, and caused police to appear at his home.
Procedural history
Nadal filed the action on January 22, 2025. Defendants were served on March 13, 2025, failed to respond, and had default entered by the clerk on May 2, 2025. After Plaintiff filed an initial motion for default judgment, the Court ordered supplementation concerning back pay; Plaintiff instead filed a second motion seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, back pay, and emotional-distress damages. The Report and Recommendation recommends an award of unpaid wages and liquidated damages, denial of back pay, and further proceedings concerning emotional-distress damages.
Remand instructions
The Report and Recommendation recommends that the district court suspend entry of judgment and order Plaintiff, within thirty days of the date of that order, to notify the court whether he seeks an evidentiary hearing concerning emotional-distress damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)(B).