You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

You might also like
Defendant Entitled to Suppression Hearing Where People Provided No Information About How Defendant Came to the Attention of Law Enforcement Personnel
Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PRIVATE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATED THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THAT ADDRESS; THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID (FIRST DEPT).
“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Loss Occasioned by Bankruptcy Proceedings in Mexico
Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor and Chimney Repair Company— Smoke Was Entering Plaintiff’s Home
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.
STANDING ON AN INVERTED BUCKET CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT” HEIGHT-DIFFERENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); INJURY WHILE PREVENTING A FALL IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS... COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS...