UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-12217-RGS

MARTIN J. WALSH, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

v.

STEARNS, D.J.

Before the court is the motion filed on behalf of Martin J. Walsh, the

U.S. Secretary of Labor (the Secretary), seeking summary judgment against

defendants Sweet Lemon, Inc., and Pornthip Neampong. The Secretary –

armed with a detailed and well-supported statement of material facts –

Local Rule 56.1 states that “[m]aterial facts of record set forth in the

statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed for

purposes of the motion to be admitted by opposing parties unless

controverted by the statement required to be served by opposing parties.”

Despite the court’s order giving defendants to December 31, 2021, to file their

opposition to the Secretary’s dispositive motions, see Dkt # 13, neither has.

this motion.

“Summary judgment is warranted if the record, construed in the light

of law.’” Lawless v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 21 (1st Cir.

2018), quoting McKenney v. Mangino, 873 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2017). On

the present record, given the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact,

the Secretary is entitled to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and

injunctive relief. The court will briefly discuss the Secretary’s request for

Section 16(b) of the FLSA provides that any employer who unlawfully

15(a)(3)) “shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be

U.S.C. § 216(b). As the Secretary points out, several courts – including this

one – have concluded that punitive damages are available in cases involving

Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 921 F.2d 108, 111-112 (7th Cir. 1990) (“‘[L]egal’

relief [is] a term commonly understood to include compensatory and

punitive damages.”); Scalia v. JKA Constr., Inc., No. 20-cv-11944-RGS, Dkt

the First Circuit’s allowance of punitive damages in cases involving the willful

damages may be appropriately awarded in employment discrimination cases

F.3d 694, 699 (1st Cir. 1995) (“[P]unitive damages have long been recognized

as an available remedy in general maritime actions where defendant’s

intentional or wanton and reckless conduct amounted to a conscious

disregard of the rights of others.”).

The court agrees with the Secretary that the First Circuit’s Title VII

jurisprudence is instructive for the purposes of determining the availability

of punitive damages awards in the FLSA context. See Serapion v. Martinez,

FLSA as standing in pari passu and endorse the practice of treating judicial

another.”). Punitive damages are available under Title VII where an

indifference to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights.” Che, 342 F.3d at

41, quoting Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 534 (1999) (emphasis

in original). “[W]hen an employer retaliates against an employee because

the employee engages in conduct that is protected by well-established federal

civil rights statutes, a [factfinder] could . . . fairly infer that the employer

wages and tips, see Pl.’s Statement of Material Facts (SMF) (Dkt # 21) ¶¶ 72-

¶ 70. Because defendants were acting with (at least) “reckless indifference”

to their employees’ federally protected rights under the FLSA, Che, 342 F.3d

at 41, punitive damages are appropriately awarded.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court ALLOWS the Secretary’s motion

for summary judgment. The Secretary is entitled to an award of $130,018.33

in back wages owed because of overtime pay violations, $29,880.98 in

withheld employee tips, and $25,000 in punitive damages. Defendants are

overtime, recordkeeping, and anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996).