Velez v. Sanchez
754 F. Supp. 2d 488
E.D.N.Y2010Background
- Velez, a native of Ecuador, moved to New York in 2001 at age 16 to live with Betsy Sanchez and work for Betsy to care for Betsy’s daughter, with promises of wages, schooling, and future legal papers.
- Velez resided in the Sanchez home from 2001 to November 2003, performing extensive household duties and caregiving for Nicole and Erica, with Betsy occasionally contributing to tasks.
- Yolanda (the grandmother) and Shari (Betsy’s sister) regularly visited the home, supervising or directing Velez in chores and sometimes monitoring her activities.
- Betsy did not pay the promised weekly wage and Velez’s relationship with Betsy grew strained as wage demands persisted, though Betsy provided room, board, and some external support (educational classes, YMCA membership).
- Velez maintained some autonomy outside the home (attending classes, visiting libraries, pursuing a GED) and ultimately left the Sanchez home in November 2003 after incidents of confrontation.
- In March 2010, the court granted summary judgment to the Sanchez defendants on federal ATS and FLSA claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and dismissed the case without prejudice to refile in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS jurisdiction exists for domestic trafficking claims | Velez asserts ATS jurisdiction for trafficking/forced labor conducted in the U.S. | Sanchez contends ATS does not reach domestic conduct and jurisdiction is improper. | ATS lacks jurisdiction; claims treated as §1595; granted summary judgment on federal claims. |
| Whether Velez can plead a §1595 claim for forced labor/trafficking | Velez alleges forced labor and trafficking by Betsy with means under §1589/§1590. | Defendants argue no means of force or coercion, and no realistic threat of harm or abuse of process. | No viable §1595 claim; two minor incidents do not show coercive means; judgment for Betsy on §1595 claims. |
| Whether Velez is an employee under FLSA | Velez claims Betsy employed her as a domestic servant; she seeks minimum wage protections. | Courts should apply economic reality test and treat Velez as a household companion rather than an employee. | No employer-employee relationship under economic reality; Betsy entitled to summary judgment on FLSA claim. |
| Whether state-law claims/claims in counterclaims/third-party claims should be entertained | Velez asserts multiple NY wage-law and related tort claims; relates to abuse and unjust enrichment. | State-law claims are supplemental; federal claims are dispositive; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (limits ATS jurisdiction; events abroad present unique problems)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (defines law of nations with specificity; cautions on expanding ATS)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (establishes ATS jurisdiction for torts involving international norms)
- Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, 697 F. Supp. 2d 674 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (recognizes §1595 scope for trafficking/forced labor claims)
- Roe I v. Bridgestone, 492 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ind. 2007) (discusses territorial scope of trafficking-related civil remedies)