You are here: / Employment Law
,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY.

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Department of Labor finding that the New York Racing Association (NYRA) was required to pay the prevailing wage to a construction contractor working at the Saratoga Race Course. The Third Department held there was insufficient proof public funds were used to pay the contractor:

Labor Law § 220 provides that “[t]he wages to be paid for a legal day’s work . . . to laborers, work[ers] or mechanics upon . . . public works, shall be not less than the prevailing rate of wages” (Labor Law 220 § [3] [a]), defined as the rate paid to “workers, laborers or mechanics in the same trade or occupation in the locality where the work is being performed” (Labor Law § 220 [5]). The NY Constitution further provides that “[n]o laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall . . . be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or used” (NY Const, art I, § 17). The Court of Appeals has recently clarified the meaning of a public work: “[f]irst, a public agency must be a party to a contract involving the employment of laborers, workers, or mechanics. Second, the contract must concern a project that primarily involves construction-like labor and is paid for by public funds. Third, the primary objective or function of the work product must be the use or other benefit of the general public” … . W.M. Schultz Constr., Inc. v Musolino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01425, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

LABOR LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/PREVAILING WAGE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)

,

JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff janitor could not sue for a slip and fall because the fall was caused by the condition he attempting to remedy as part of his job:

Dismissal of the complaint as against defendants is warranted in this action where plaintiff janitor alleges that he was injured when he slipped on pebbles on the bathroom floor of the building he was hired to clean. It is well established that a maintenance or cleaning worker has no claim at law for injury suffered from a dangerous condition that he was hired to remedy … , and here, plaintiff stated that as part of his job cleaning the bathroom, he frequently removed the pebbles from the floor. Black v Wallace Church Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01480, 1st Dept 2-23-17

NEGLIGENCE (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/SLIP AND FALL (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/JANITORS (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)

,

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the New York State Department of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) ruling, without a hearing, there was no probable cause to believe petitioner was discriminated or retaliated against because of her disability was not arbitrary or capricious and had a rational basis:

“Where, as here, SDHR renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis’ ” … . We agree with respondent that the court erred in disturbing SDHR’s determination based upon, inter alia, its failure to conduct a hearing. “Courts give deference to SDHR due to its experience and expertise in evaluating allegations of discrimination” … , and “such deference extends to [SDHR’s] decision whether to conduct a hearing” … . SDHR has the discretion to determine the method to be used in investigating a claim, and “a hearing is not required in all cases” … . Inasmuch as “the parties made extensive submissions to [SDHR], petitioner was given an opportunity to present [her] case, and the record shows that the submissions were in fact considered, the determination cannot be arbitrary and capricious merely because no hearing was held’ … . * * *

Here, we conclude that “the conflicting evidence before SDHR did not create a material issue of fact that warranted a formal hearing” … . Rather, we agree with respondent that a rational basis supports SDHR’s determination that, based upon all of the facts and circumstances, there is no factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious person to believe that respondent unlawfully discriminated against petitioner based on her disability ,,, . In addition, SDHR rationally determined that the evidence did not support petitioner’s allegation that respondent subjected her to a hostile work environment … . Finally, we conclude that SDHR’s determination that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent retaliated against petitioner is not arbitrary or capricious, and it has a rational basis in the record … . Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 01060, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYS) (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)

,

GLAZIERS ENROLLED IN AN APPRENTICE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PAID AS APPRENTICES EVEN IF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID IS NOT IN THE SAME TRADE AS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a statute was wrong and reversed. The case concerned whether glaziers enrolled in an apprentice program should be paid as apprentices even if the work for which they are paid is not in the same trade or occupation as the apprenticeship program:

In reviewing Labor Law § 220 as a whole, we conclude that nothing in that statute establishes any basis for a different interpretation of section 220 (3-e). Rather, we note that the very limitation defendants seek to impose on section 220 (3-e), i.e., a limitation to work in the same trade or occupation, was added to other subdivisions of Labor Law § 220 (see § 220 [3] [a], [b]). When “the Legislature uses unlike terms in different parts of a statute it is reasonable to infer that a dissimilar meaning is intended” … . The fact that the Legislature did not add similar restrictive language to section 220 (3-e) further supports our conclusion that no such restriction was intended, and this Court will not “amend [the] statute by inserting words that are not there” … .

Inasmuch as “the language of [the] statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must give effect to its plain meaning” … , and we may not “resort to extrinsic material such as legislative history or memoranda” … . We thus conclude that Labor Law § 220 (3-e), by its terms, permits glazier apprentices who are registered, individually, under a bona fide glazier apprenticeship program to work and be paid as apprentices even if the work they are performing is not work in the same trade or occupation as their apprenticeship program. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2017 NY Slip Op 01112. 4th Dept 2-10-17

,

PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.

The First Department affirmed the dismissal of a former police officer’s complaint which alleged he was fired from his job at Con Edison because of his convictions, in violation of the state and city Human Rights Law. While a police officer, the plaintiff was charged with beating and sodomizing an arrestee in a notorious case. Plaintiff’s assault-related convictions were vacated and the jury deadlocked in the second trial. The only conviction which remained was for perjury. Plaintiff was fired because of workplace disruption and customer relations stemming from plaintiff’s perceived involvement in the assault. The First Department determined the firing was not the result of discrimination based upon the perjury conviction. The vacated convictions were not “convictions” covered by the statutory prohibition:

The assault-related convictions on which plaintiff was retried, and the jury deadlocked, are not covered by article 23-A [of the Correction Law], since the article applies only to individuals who “previously have been convicted,” and the vacatur of plaintiff’s prior assault convictions rendered those convictions nullities … . Although plaintiff maintains that he remains “previously … convicted,” we reject this interpretation since it would permit an employer to deny employment based on a vacated conviction in reliance on the statutory exceptions … .

The legislative intent is to rehabilitate, and therefore avoid recidivism by, “ex-offenders,” not those whose convictions have been vacated, who generally do not need rehabilitation and are not at risk of recidivism … . “Although ex-offenders were urged when released from prison to find employment as a part of their rehabilitation, they had great difficulty in doing so because of their criminal records…. Failure to find employment … injured society as a whole by contributing to a high rate of recidivism … Thus, [article 23-A] sets out a broad general rule that employers and public agencies cannot deny employment or a license to an applicant solely based on status as an ex-offender” … . Schwarz v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00927, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)/CONVICTIONS (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)

,

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and retention cause of action against a nursing home (Sunrise Manor) alleging improper care of a resident should have been dismissed. When it is alleged an employee acted within the scope of employment, the respondeat superior theory applies and a negligent hiring and retention cause of action will not lie:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Sunrise Manor’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action, which was to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention, insofar as asserted against it. “Generally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior and no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring, retention, supervision or training” … . Here, in opposition to Sunrise Manor’s prima facie showing that its employees were acting within the scope of their employment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While an exception exists to the above general principle where the plaintiff seeks punitive damages from the employer “based on alleged gross negligence in the hiring or retention of the employee” … , here, that exception is inapplicable because the Supreme Court granted that branch of Sunrise Manor’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action seeking punitive damages. Henry v Sunrise Manor Ctr. for Nursing & Rehabilitation, 2017 NY Slip Op 00634, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

NEGLIGENCE (WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION)/NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION)

,

COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer (FIC) was not obligated to defend plaintiff in a suit alleging the payment of inadequate wages in violation of the Faire Labor Standards Act and retaliation for bringing suit. The policy excluded coverage for employment-related wrongful acts. “Employment-related” was not defined:

In context, the plain and ordinary meaning of the “employment-related Wrongful Act” exclusion unambiguously encompasses claims regarding violations of wage laws and retaliation for complaints about violations of wage laws. The payment of wages has such an established connection to the “act of employing” or “the state of being employed” that a contrary conclusion would be unreasonable. Put otherwise, no reasonable average insured giving the relevant terms their “plain and ordinary meaning” would conclude that complaints regarding violations of law as to payment of wages were not “employment-related” … . In short, it is clear from the language of the exclusion that … the policy did not insure against the clearly “employment-related” claims raised in the underlying action. Hansard v Federal Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 00633, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

INSURANCE LAW (COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS)/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS)

, , ,

APPELLATE COURT NEED NOT REVIEW ISSUES NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IN THE APPENDIX; COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL; FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION.

The Second Department determined (1) certain issues in plaintiff’s appeal could not be addressed because the necessary documents were not included in the appendix provided to the appellate court, (2) the faithless servant doctrine applied to plaintiff who, by his disloyalty, forfeited his contractual right to a stock option, and (3) the plaintiff waived his right to a jury trial in this declaratory judgment action:

This Court is not obligated to determine an issue where the appendix submitted to it is inadequate to permit review … . * * *

Where a plaintiff joins an equitable claim for specific performance to a legal claim for damages, the plaintiff waives the right to a jury trial … . “[A] declaratory judgment action . . . can be legal or equitable in nature, and to determine whether a party is entitled to a jury trial, it is necessary to examine which of the traditional actions would most likely have been used to present the instant claim had the declaratory judgment action not been created'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment cause of action was in the nature of a prayer for specific performance … . Accordingly, the court correctly determined that the plaintiff had waived his right to a jury trial … .  * * *

… [T]he court properly applied the faithless servant doctrine and determined that, pursuant to that doctrine, the plaintiff forfeited the right to exercise the stock option … . Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00503, 2nd Dept 1-25-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION)/FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/CONTRACT LAW (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/JURY TRIAL (CIVIL, COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/APPEALS (APPELLATE COURT NEED NOT REVIEW ISSUES NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IN THE APPENDIX)

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination suit should go forward. Questions of fact had been raised about whether plaintiff’s employer was made sufficiently aware of plaintiff’s disabling anxiety and whether reasonable accommodations should have been made pursuant to the Administrative Code (NYC):

Under these circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether, based on plaintiff’s disclosures, defendant reasonably “should have known” that plaintiff was suffering from a disabling anxiety condition (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][a]…). Issues of fact likewise exist as to whether defendant should have entered into a good faith interactive dialogue with plaintiff, inquiring into the nature of her disabling condition and exploring what sorts of accommodations might reasonably be required, and whether reasonable accommodations would have enabled her to perform the “essential requisites of [her] job” (Administrative Code § 8-107[15][b]), without causing defendant “undue hardship in the conduct of . . . [its] business” (id. § 8-102[18]…).

Issues of fact also exist as to whether plaintiff’s alleged disabling anxiety condition caused the poor performance (i.e., absenteeism and unresponsiveness) that defendant pointed to as the reason for her termination … , and, if so, whether plaintiff could have performed the essential requisites of her job with reasonable accommodation (see Administrative Code §§ 8-107[15][b]; 8-102[18]). Chernov v Securities Training Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00126, 1st Dept 1-10-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/DISCRIMINATION (PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (NYC) (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ANXIETY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)/ACCOMMODATIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE)

, ,

METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS HER ONLY REMEDY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the defendant Metropolitan Opera’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiff is a singer who has performed with the Met for over twenty years as a featured soloist. Plaintiff, during a performance, fell from an elevated platform and was injured. She sued in negligence. The Met argued plaintiff was an employee and her only recourse was workers’ compensation benefits. The court concluded the negligence cause of action was viable:

WCL [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 2(4) defines “employee” to include “a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts who performs services as such for … a theatre … or similar establishment … unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by this chapter.” Here, plaintiff’s services were provided to the Met pursuant to a per-performance contractor’s agreement, entered into between her corporation and the Met, that provided that the corporation “agree[d] to furnish to The Met the services of its employee, Wendy White . . ., as singer on an individual performance basis.” Plaintiff’s corporation meets the definition of an “employer covered by this chapter,” inasmuch as it is a corporation “having one or more persons in employment” (WCL § 2[3]). Thus, by written contract, plaintiff was stipulated to be an employee of another employer … .

The Met is correct that the plain language of WCL § 2(4) … draws no distinction between regular performers and stars. * * * … Here, the legislative history supports plaintiff’s suggested distinction, since it indicates that the statutory definition of employees was intended to protect the vast majority of performers, who are not “stars,” and that the statutory exception was designed to exclude those performers with the clout to negotiate the terms of their own engagements. White v Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00093, 1st Dept 1-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/STARS (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy