AD2 NOTES DISAGREEMENT WITH AD1 ON PERMISSIBILITY OF SUCH CLAIMS
In a putative class action, after his first cause of action – which sought “liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees,” premised upon a Labor Law violation -- was dismissed by the Queens County Supreme Court, BFG (a manual worker) appealed.
Apparently, BFG’s claim was predicated upon a violation of Labor Law § 191, which requires that employers pay their manual laborers, “weekly.” In addition to “civil and criminal penalties,” BFG contended that workers had a right to bring a case to recover damages because his employer violated that “frequency of payment” requirement. But the judge assigned to the matter didn’t agree.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, examined the legislative history and statutory language, and concluded that the law only provided for such relief when there has been an underpayment or nonpayment of wages. While the Appellate Division, First Department, in an earlier case, had determined that the statute also applied to “late payments,” the AD2 noted its disagreement with that analysis and declined to follow that decision since there was nothing in the statute which addressed a “frequency of pay” violation.
The appellate court noted, in pertinent part:
“In sum, this legislative history reveals that Labor Law § 198(1-a) was aimed at remedying employers' failure to pay the amount of wages required by contract or law. There is no reference in the legislative history of Labor Law § 198 to the frequency or timing of wage payments, and nothing to suggest that the statute was meant to address circumstances in which an employer pays full wages pursuant to an agreed-upon, biweekly pay schedule that nevertheless does not conform to the frequency of payments provision of law.”
As a result, the AD2 was of the view the court below had “properly granted” dismissal of that first cause of action and left the outcome undisturbed.
That’s it for us. We’re clocking out ….
# # #
DECISION