Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308

Velez sues Sanchez, Shari Munoz, and Yolanda Munoz under ATS, FLSA, and New York law; district court dismissed ATS, granted summary judgment on TVPRA and FLSA, and dismissed breach of contract claim.
Velez moved to the U.S. for work as a domestic helper; alleged long hours, no pay, and coercive control.
She lived in Sanchez’s New York household beginning 2001, with promises of room, board, and education support; passport controlled by Sanchez.
Court later treated ATS claims as TVPRA claims but then granted summary judgment on federal claims; state-law claims were left for supplemental jurisdiction.
FLSA claim concerns whether Velez was a domestic worker employee in a household; Statute of Frauds governs the alleged oral contract for wages and college tuition.
Appeal results in affirming ATS and contract dismissal, but vacating and remanding the FLSA claim for factual development under the proper economic-reality test and related factors.]

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ATS jurisdiction lies for alleged conduct in the U.S.	Velez seeks relief for violations of customary international law.	Court lacked jurisdiction because conduct did not violate the law of nations.	No ATS jurisdiction; failure to show a viable norm of customary international law.
Whether TVPRA preempts ATS claims and retroactively applies to conduct pre-dating 2003	TVPRA provides a private right of action that might reach her claims.	TVPRA preempts ATS and does not apply retroactively to pre-2003 conduct.	TVPRA preemption and retroactivity defenses prevail; retroactivity rejected.
Whether Velez was an employee under the FLSA domestic worker provision	Economic reality shows an employer-employee relationship.	Velez was part of Sanchez’s household; not an employee as a matter of law.	There are genuine issues of material fact; remand on FLSA claim.
Whether the oral contract for wages and college tuition satisfies the NY Statute of Frauds	Contract was enforceable despite oral form because compensation was fixed within a year.	College tuition promise defeats enforceability under Statute of Frauds.	Breach of contract claim barred by NY Statute of Frauds.

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (torture as a norm of customary international law)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS creates jurisdiction for narrow, defined norms of international law)
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (requires a concrete, well-defined norm for ATS jurisdiction)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (customary international law and doorkeeping principles apply to ATS)
Alamo v. S.E.C. (Tony & Susan Alamo Found.), 471 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1985) (civil liability for trainees/household workers may exist under broad FLSA interpretation)
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1947) (basic framework for wage-related statutory interpretation)
Carter v. Dutchess Community College, 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (economic-reality test for employer-employee status)
Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (economic reality factors for wage-employee determination)
Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 56 (N.Y. 1998) (Statute of Frauds and at-will employment considerations)