87 A.D.3d 25
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Petitioner received NSWOTDA public assistance from 1993 to March 2000 and was required to participate in NYC Work Experience Program (WEP).
- Petitioner was assigned to perform city work (mail sorting at Coney Island Hospital; cleaning tasks at Staten Island Ferry Terminal) as a condition of benefits.
- Petitioner alleges compulsory 35-hour weekly work in exchange for benefits and biweekly cash payments plus food stamps.
- OTDA intercepted $5,000 of lottery winnings in Sept. 2007 to reimburse benefits paid from Sept. 1997 to Mar. 2000; petitioner sought review.
- Petitioner claimed OTDA interception violated FLSA and NY Minimum Wage Act; Supreme Court dismissed some claims but reinstated FLSA claim against OTDA and Commissioner.
- Court ultimately concluded petitioner was an employee under the FLSA but not under NY Minimum Wage Act; decision remanded for further proceedings on the FLSA claim against OTDA/Hansell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WEP participants are employees under NY Labor Law | Petitioner: WEP workers are employees; thus minimum wage applies | Respondents: WEP participants are not employees under NY minimum wage law | No; WEP participants not employees under NY Labor Law |
| Whether WEP participants are employees under the FLSA | Petitioner: WEP participants fall within FLSA's broad definition of employee | Respondents: Not necessarily employees; context unclear | Yes; petitioner is an employee under the FLSA against OTDA/Hansell |
| Whether lottery interception violated the FLSA and related protections | Petitioner: Intercepting winnings to repay benefits infringes FLSA protections | Respondents: Interception permitted under welfare repayment rules | FLSA rights cannot be waived; interception may violate FLSA; remand for further proceedings |
| Impact of Brukhman v Giuliani on WEP employee status under FLSA | Brukhman does not compel a contrary result; FLSA extends to public agencies | Respondents rely on Brukhman to limit state constitutional employe status | Brukhman not controlling; FLSA applies to OTDA as a public agency under the economic reality test |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v City of New York, 359 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (welfare recipients as employees under FLSA/Title VII considerations (persuasive for FLSA))
- Johns v Stewart, 57 F.3d 1544 (10th Cir. 1995) (workfare participants treated as assistance, not employment under FLSA (cited by court))
- Herman v RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (expansiveness of FLSA; economic reality test guidance)
- Barrentine v Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (FLSA rights cannot be waived to defeat statute purposes)
- Brukhman v Giuliani, 94 N.Y.2d 387 (1999) (WEP participants not controlled by NY Constitution standard; not controlling on FLSA)
- Matter of City Council of City of Watervliet v Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 3 N.Y.3d 508 (2004) (NY courts rely on DOL interpretation of FLSA in public agency context)