223 A.D.3d 712
N.Y. App. Div.2024Background
- Plaintiff Besante Fitzgerald Grant, a manual worker employed by Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., alleges the company paid him and other manual workers biweekly instead of weekly, purportedly violating New York Labor Law § 191(1)(a).
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action seeking damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees for the frequency-of-pay violation.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), arguing that no private right of action exists for violation of the weekly pay provision absent underpayment or nonpayment of wages.
- The Supreme Court (Queens County) granted the motion to dismiss the first cause of action; plaintiff appealed.
- The appeal addresses whether a manual worker paid all wages biweekly—not weekly—may bring a private action for statutory damages under Labor Law § 198(1-a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of Private Right of Action for § 191 Violation | § 198(1-a) allows workers to sue for late wage payments, even if paid in full later; late payment is effectively underpayment. | Only nonpayment or underpayment (not just late payment) authorizes private suit & damages under § 198(1-a). | No private right exists for biweekly payment w/o underpayment; dismissal affirmed. |
| Entitlement to Liquidated Damages and Attorney’s Fees | Liquidated damages/fees apply to any frequency violation under § 191(1)(a). | These remedies require underpayment or nonpayment, not just a failure of frequency. | Not recoverable without underpayment or nonpayment. |
| Statutory Construction and Legislative Intent | Legislative purpose was to protect manual workers dependent on timely wages; breadth of § 198(1-a) covers timing violations. | § 198(1-a)’s plain language and history relate to wage amount, not timing; no evidence intent to allow suits for delay alone. | Statute aimed at missed/shorted wages, not frequency; no legislative support for private action here. |
| Implied Private Right of Action | A right should be implied to further statutory protections for manual workers. | Existing administrative and criminal remedies are sufficient; implying private suit inconsistent with scheme. | No implied right given existing enforcement mechanisms. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vetri, 309 NY 401 (N.Y. 1955) (historical interpretation of frequency-of-pay statutes protecting manual workers)
- AHA Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (scope of § 198 remedies; addresses wage claims)
- Matter of IKEA U.S. v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 241 AD2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (administrative enforcement of § 191)
- Konkur v. Utica Academy of Science Charter School, 38 NY3d 38 (N.Y. 2022) (criteria for recognizing implied private rights of action under the Labor Law)