You are here: / Labor Law
, ,

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined a police officer who was injured when she fell off the back of a flat bed truck while loading police barricades could not sue in negligence (based on the firefighter rule) but could sue under General Municipal Law 205-e based on an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a (which imposes a general duty to provide a safe work environment):

Re: the applicability of the firefighter rule:

…[T]he firefighter rule provides that “[p]olice and firefighters may not recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in that type of employment” …. The rule bars a police officer’s or a firefighter’s recovery ” when the performance of his or her duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury'” … * * *

While loading a flatbed truck may not be a task that is typically associated with police work, the alleged accident occurred while the plaintiff was on a police vehicle, loading police barriers, and while she was assigned to the barrier truck detail, a location and job detail to which she was exposed solely as a result of her duties as a police officer… .  * * *

Re: the viability of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action:

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Legislature has, on several occasions, “sought to ameliorate the harsh effects of the [firefighter] rule” …. To that end, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted General Municipal Law § 205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters who, while in the line of duty, are injured as a result of violations of statutes or regulations (see General Municipal Law § 205-a; L 1935, ch 800, § 2; L 1936, ch 251, § 1). In 1989, the Legislature enacted General Municipal Law § 205-e in direct response to Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393), which ,,,had extended the firefighter rule to police officers… .  * * *

…[T]he plaintiff has alleged that the defendants’ Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) violation is a predicate for her General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Section 205-e does not stand alone and must be predicated on a violation of a separate legal requirement. …[T]he Court of Appeals, in addressing the various amendments to General Municipal Law § 205-e, has stated “that we should apply this provision expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible”… .

Since section 27-a provides an objective standard by which the actions or omissions of a public employer, such as the City, can be measured for purposes of liability, Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) can serve as a predicate for a section 205-e claim… .  Gammons v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05298, Second Dept 7-17-13

 

, ,

THOSE WHO WORK ON MUNICIPAL VESSELS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PREVAILING WAGE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 220 (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, determined a municipal vessel is public work entitling those who work on a municipal vessel to the prevailing wage pursuant to Labor Law 220:

We hold that a municipal vessel is a public work within the meaning of Labor Law § 220 and article I, § 17 of the State Constitution—so that workers involved in its construction, maintenance or repair must be paid prevailing wages—if the vessel’s primary objective is to benefit the general public. * * *

We …. conclude that a three-prong test should be applied to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Law § 220 and article I, § 17 of the State Constitution. First, 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. …

… Plaintiffs worked on such vessels as the Staten Island Ferry boats, city fireboats, and municipal garbage barges. A ferry boat is, of course, made for the use of the general public, as is a bus or train. While we recognize that a fireboat, tug or barge is not made to be used by the public, there is no doubt that its function is to serve the general public. For example, a New York City fireboat is used by firefighters for the … benefit of the entire City’s public. There is no justification for making fine distinctions between vessels according to whether or not members of the public have access to them. We have not differentiated buildings used by public employees according to whether there is public access … . The dispositive question is whether their primary function is to serve the general public. De La Cruz v Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 04842 [21 NY3d 530], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Starbuck’s Tip-Splitting Policy Analyzed

The Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to answer certified questions about how the Labor Law relates to a tip-splitting policy used by Starbucks.  Over two dissents, the Court of Appeals determined, under the Labor Law, limited supervisory duties did not mandate exclusion from the tip pool:

Starbucks maintains a written policy governing the collection, storage and distribution of customer tips. Pursuant to this policy, each Starbucks store places a plexiglass container at the counter where patrons may deposit tips. Once these tip canisters become full, Starbucks requires that they be emptied into a bag and the money is stored in a safe. At the end of each week, the tips are tallied and distributed in cash to two categories of employees — baristas and shift supervisors — in proportion to the number of hours each employee worked. Starbucks does not permit its assistant store managers or store managers to share in the weekly distribution of tips. The company’s decision to include shift supervisors in these tip pools was the impetus for the first lawsuit before us, while its exclusion of assistant store managers underlies the claims in the second action. * * *

…[A]n employee whose personal service to patrons is a principal or regular part of his or her duties may participate in an employer-mandated tip allocation arrangement under Labor Law § 196-d, even if that employee possesses limited supervisory responsibilities. But an employee granted meaningful authority or control over subordinates can no longer be considered similar to waiters and busboys within the meaning of section 196-d and, consequently, is not eligible to participate in a tip pool. * * *

…Starbucks’ decision to exclude assistant store managers from the tip pool is not contrary to Labor Law § 196-d.  Barenboim, et al v Starbucks Corporation, No 122, CtApp 6-26-13

 

,

“Service Charge” Could Be “Gratuity” to Which Employer Not Entitled

In upholding the sufficiency of a complaint seeking damages for violations of Labor Law section 196-d, alleging that a 15 to 20% “service charge” on catering and hospital forms was actually a “gratuity,” the Second Department wrote:

Labor Law § 196-d provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o employer . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee.” In Samiento v World Yacht Inc. (10 NY3d 70, 74), …the Court of Appeals held that depending upon the circumstances, even a mandatory service charge added to a bill “may be a charge purported to be a gratuity’ within the meaning of [Labor Law § 196-d].” The Court stated that a mandatory service charge can purport to be a gratuity “when it is shown that employers represented or allowed their customers to believe that the charges were in fact gratuities for their employees” (id. at 81). “[T]he standard under which a mandatory charge or fee is purported to be a gratuity should be weighed against the expectation of the reasonable customer” and the “reasonable patron standard should govern when determining whether a banquet patron would understand a service charge was being collected in lieu of a gratuity” (id. at 79). Martin v Restaurant Assoc Events Corp, 2013 NY slip Op 03304, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

, , ,

Prevailing Wage Law Not Preempted by Federal Telecommunications Act or Labor Relations Act

In upholding the finding that petitioner had failed to pay the prevailing wage for work done for a school district, the Third Department determined the prevailing wage law was not preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act and the Labor Management Relations Act:

Generally, a federal law may supersede a state law where Congress explicitly declares preemption as its intent …, or where the federal law is “‘so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the [s]tates to supplement it'” …. The Court of Appeals has observed, however, that “[t]he presumption against preemption is especially strong with regard to laws that affect the states’ historic police powers over occupational health  and safety issues” …. While the Telecommunications Act is intended to exclusively govern the field of telecommunications service (see 47 USC § 253 [a]), the prevailing wage law is a minimum labor standard … .As such, it falls within the Telecommunications Act’s safe harbor provision, which provides that  “[n]othing  in this section  shall affect the  ability of  a [s]tate to impose, on a competitively neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to . . . protect the public safety and welfare” (47 USC  §  253  [b]). … Nor is the prevailing wage law preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act. That statute provides that federal law governs suits to enforce collective bargaining agreements (see 29 USC § 185 [a]). While it is true that the Department  of Labor refers to collective bargaining agreements  to determine  prevailing wages,  those  agreements  are  not  necessarily determinative, and the rights conferred by the prevailing wage law  are independent of those conferred by  such  agreements … . Matter of Pascazi v Gardner, 513528, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, ,

Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions

In reversing the verdict for the defendant in a “breach of an employment contract” and “Labor Law article 6” action, the Second Department explained the proof requirements for both as follows:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance under the contract, the defendant’s breach of the contract, and resulting damages …. “The elements of an effective employment contract consist of the identity of the parties, the terms of employment, which include the commencement date, the duration of the contract and the salary'” …. Moreover, where the duration of a contract exceeds one year, in order to satisfy the statute of frauds “a writing must identify the parties, describe the subject matter, state all the essential terms of an agreement, and be signed by the party to be charged” … .  * * *

…”[T]he purpose of Labor Law article 6 is to strengthen and clarify the rights of employees to the payment of wages'” …. To recover under that article, “a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she is an employee entitled to its protections” … . Although an independent contractor is not considered an employee for the purposes of Labor Law § 190 …, “[t]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … .  Kausal v Educational Prods Info Exch Inst, 2013 NY Slip Op 02545, 2011-07924, Index No 5953/04, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

, ,

labor law prevailing wage requirement does not apply to construction work for a volunteer fire department which is a not-for-profit corporation.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law 220 did not apply to construction work for the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD) which had procured its own funding for a new firehouse:

After an investigation, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter, concluding that the firehouse project was a public work subject to the prevailing wage law. Once the subcontractors learned of the DOL’s determination, work on the project halted. In December 2006, BVFD agreed to indemnify [the contractor] and its subcontractors against any liability resulting from their failure to pay the prevailing wages, and construction resumed and the project was completed. …

The prevailing wage law covers contracts involving each of four specific public entities: the state, a public benefit corporation, a municipal corporation or a commission appointed pursuant to law (see Labor Law § 220 [2]). It is undisputed that BVFD is a fire corporation as defined by the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, and it is not one of the public entities named in the statute. Nevertheless, the Commissioner determined that BVFD could be deemed “the functional equivalent” of a “municipal department” within the meaning of the Labor Law. …

The “functional equivalent” test, however, was rejected by this Court in Matter of New York Charter School Assn. v Smith (15 NY3d 403 [2010]). There, the DOL deemed charter schools “public benefit corporations” because the schools serve a valuable public purpose and their existence is the result of a charter issued by a state or local municipal entity. Given those factors, the DOL determined that charter schools met the requirements established by the courts of this State for public work projects. We rejected that argument because while charter schools, like volunteer fire corporations, may be “quasi-public” in nature, they are not a specified public entity and thus, do not fit within the ambit of the statute (id. at 410).

Had the legislature intended to include volunteer fire corporations under the statute, it could easily have done so. Notably, in 2007, the legislature expanded the statute’s coverage to include contracts involving other types of entities, but only when it can be shown they were acting on behalf of the public entity … . Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v Gardner, 2013 NY Slip Op 01017 [20 NY3d 469], CtApp 2-19-13

 

 

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