Alger v. Prime Rest. Mgmt., LLC

JENNIFER ALGER and AMBER MYERS, Plaintiffs, v. PRIME RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant.

1:15-cv-567-WSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

July 13, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller's Final Report and Recommendation [15] ("R&R), recommending that Plaintiffs Jennifer Alger and Amber Myers' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Default Judgment [9] be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

1. Plaintiff Jennifer Alger

Between 2011 and 2013, Defendant Prime Restaurant Management, LLC ("Defendant") operated three (3) Tilted Kilt restaurants in Atlanta and employed approximately 100-200 employees. ([13] at 3, 6-7, 28, 30). These themed restaurants require female staff to serve as "entertainers and models" and to wear certain revealing uniforms. ([13] at 7-8). In 2011, Defendant hired Plaintiff Jennifer Alger ("Alger") to work as a bartender in its Tilted Kilt franchises. (Compl. ¶ 15; [13] at 6). Alger worked primarily at Defendant's Dunwoody location for at least five (5) shifts per week. (Compl. ¶ 17). That location saw higher customer volume, and generated higher staff earnings, than Defendant's other locations. (Id.). Alger also worked, as needed, at Defendant's Alpharetta location for up to two (2) shifts per week. (Compl. ¶ 18). According to Alger, she "had pretty much [her] pick of the schedule," moved up through the server ranks and earned sought-after closing shifts. ([13] at 6-7, 15).

In January 2013, Alger became pregnant. ([13] at 8). By March 2013, Alger had notified "all of [Defendant's] management and . . . owners" that she was pregnant and had asked Defendant for a "maternity [work] uniform." (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19; [13] at 8-9). Defendant told her that the uniforms were "out of stock" but agreed to order more. (Compl. ¶ 19). Alger claims she repeatedly followed up with Defendant and that Defendant repeatedly advised her that no new maternity uniforms had come into stock. (Compl. ¶ 20). Defendant never provided her with a maternity uniform. (Compl. ¶ 21).

In March 2013, Alger began to experience "severe complications" with her pregnancy and, on or around March 17, 2013, after experiencing bleeding at work, she ended her shift early and went to the hospital. (Compl. ¶ 22; [13] at 10-11). The doctor recommended bed rest for approximately two (2) weeks. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24; [13] at 11-12). Her gynecologist agreed. ([13] at 11). Alger immediately informed her manager and took two (2) weeks off work. (Compl. ¶ 24; [13] at 11-12). Defendant did not tell Alger that she had a right to medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; [13] at 12).

In or around early April 2013, when Alger returned to work, she was assigned solely to the Alpharetta location and her shifts were cut to three (3) per week. (Compl. ¶ 26). This significantly reduced her income. (Compl. ¶ 27). In or around May 2013, Alger took four (4) days off work due to continued complications with her pregnancy. (Compl. ¶ 28). Although Defendant "routinely assists other non-pregnant employees in covering shifts," Defendant refused to help Alger find coverage for her shifts. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30). Defendant also did not advise Alger of her right to take medical leave under the FMLA. ([13] at 17). Alger claims that Defendant previously permitted her to take more than a week off work to get a breast augmentation, "very happ[ily]" arranged cover for her shiftsduring that period, and gave her the same shifts and several new uniforms when she returned to work. ([13] at 18).

On May 8, 2013, Defendant terminated her employment, telling her that, although she was "a good employee and great bartender," Defendant "could not build a business if she was going to be out" and "maybe [she could] return after [her] baby is born." (Compl. ¶¶ 31-33; [13] at 20-21). Alger understood this to mean that Defendant "had a problem with [her] being pregnant and . . . requiring medical leave." ([13] at 21). She testified that she was terminated "because [she] was pregnant, and because [she] needed some medical leave." ([13] at 27). Alger did not obtain new employment until August 2014, meaning she was out of week for approximately 63 weeks. ([13] at 22-23).

2. Plaintiff Amber Myers

In June 2011, Defendant hired Plaintiff Amber Myers ("Myers") to work as a bartender and server in its Tilted Kilt franchise. ([13] at 28). Myers worked at Defendant's Alpharetta restaurant for approximately five (5) shifts per week. ([13] at 29). In January 2013, Myers became pregnant and obtained a maternity uniform from a friend at work. ([13] at 31-32). By March 2013, Myers had informed Defendant that she was pregnant and that she intended to take "a brief period" off work after giving birth. (Compl. ¶ 35; [13] at 31-32). Defendant didnot advise her of her right to medical leave under the FMLA. ([13] at 31-32). After learning of Myer's pregnancy, Myer's manager became "extremely hostile" towards her, "often yell[ing] at her and call[ing] her 'stupid'" and "referr[ing] to [her] as a 'walking lawsuit.'" (Compl. ¶¶ 45-47; [13] at 35-37).

In or around April 2013, Myers asked Defendant for a larger skirt for her maternity uniform. (Compl. ¶ 36). Defendant told her that the larger skirts were "out of stock" and that Defendant would order more and notify Myers when they arrived. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 41). In April and May 2013, Myers repeatedly reminded Defendant that she needed a larger maternity uniform. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 42). Defendant told Myers the uniforms were "backordered" and suggested that Myers could work as a hostess because employees in that position were permitted to wear slacks. (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41). Myers declined because hostesses were paid less than employees in her position. (Compl. ¶ 40). Myers claims she contacted the maternity uniform supplier, who told her that the large skirts were in stock and that Defendant had not placed an order for them. (Compl. ¶ 43; [13] at 33). The supplier informed Myers that she could not order a large skirt for herself and that any order had to come from Defendant. ([13] at 33). Myers informed Defendant but Defendant never provided her with the larger maternity uniform. (Compl. ¶ 42; [13] at 34).

On July 26, 2013, Defendant called Myers into a meeting, provided her with a "final written warning," asked her to sign it, criticized her work performance, and stated that she was being placed on a thirty (30) day "performance improvement plan." (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 50; [13] at 37-39). Defendant claimed to issue the warning because Myers was "uncoachable," had a bad attitude, was not providing a good customer experience, and did not get along with co-workers. ([13] at 37). Myers was not aware of these issues and had not previously received any written or verbal warnings. (Compl. ¶ 49; [13] at 38). Myers testified that she did her job well, had "lots of regulars," worked hard, had high sales, and had a good relationship with her coworkers. ([13] at 36-38).

Myers refused to sign the warning unless Defendant obtained confirmation from Myers' coworkers that the criticisms were valid. ([13] at 38-39). Myers claims she asked for a copy of the warning but was told she could only have one if she signed it. ([13] at 39). The general manager arrived later that evening, refused to give Myers a copy of the warning, and terminated her employment. (Id.). Myers asked for a separation notice but the general manager told her to leave the restaurant and he would "make sure [she] had a police escort" if she came back. ([13] at 40). Although Myers did not receive an explanation for her termination,she testified that Defendant "didn't want [her] to work any more because [she] was pregnant." ([13] at 41).

B. Procedural History

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [1], asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the FMLA. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs served [4] their Complaint on Defendant. Defendant failed to file an answer or responsive motion and, on June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Entry of Default against Defendant Prime Restaurant Management, LLC [5]. The Court entered default against Defendant later that day.

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Default Judgment [9], seeking back pay, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs. On March 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing in which Plaintiffs testified and provided factual support for their claims. (See [13]). On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Post-Hearing Brief in Support of Damages and Attorney's Fees [14]. In it, Alger seeks $64,500 in back pay, $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, and $64,500 in liquidated damages. Myers seeks $24,200 in back pay, $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, and $24,200 in liquidated damages. Plaintiffs also seekprejudgment interest on their back pay and liquidated damages, $35,017.50 in attorneys' fees, and $687.70 in litigation costs. Defendant has not entered an appearance or otherwise participated in this case.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R, recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs were entitled to relief under Title VII and the FMLA but not under the ADA. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Alger is entitled to $66,912.12 in back pay and prejudgment interest, $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII, and $66,912.12 in liquidated damages under the FMLA. The Magistrate also concluded that Myers is entitled to $25,620.17 in back pay and prejudgment interest, $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII, and $25,620.17 in liquidated damages under the FMLA. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiffs' request for...