Bryant v. Buffalo Exchange, LTD.

Background

Delaney Bryant, Brianna Lemmon, and Violet Ospina brought the case for themselves and a proposed class of retail employees employed by Buffalo Exchange at its New York locations. They alleged that Buffalo Exchange violated New York Labor Law § 191(1)(a), which requires certain employees to be paid weekly. They sought liquidated damages equal to 100% of the wages that were paid late.

Buffalo Exchange moved to dismiss. It argued that New York law does not provide a private right of action—that is, a right for employees to sue directly—for late wage payments.

Legal Question

The dispute concerned whether New York Labor Law § 198(1-a) authorizes employees to bring a private lawsuit when their wages were paid late but were eventually paid in full. The parties agreed that § 198(1-a) authorizes private lawsuits for underpayments, but disagreed about whether a late payment qualifies as an underpayment. The plaintiffs alternatively argued that New York law recognizes an implied private right of action for late payments.

New York appellate courts had reached different conclusions. The First Department held in a prior case that late payments count as underpayments and may be privately enforced. The Second Department later held that there is neither an express nor an implied private right of action for late payments. Because of that conflict, the court predicted how New York’s highest court would resolve the issue.

Court’s Analysis

The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ interpretation was difficult to reconcile with the ordinary meaning of “underpayment” and with § 198(1-a)’s language describing liquidated damages as an additional amount measured by wages that remain due. The plaintiffs, however, sought liquidated damages alone even though the late-paid wages had already been paid.

The court nevertheless concluded that § 198(1-a) must be interpreted in a manner similar to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s enforcement provision. The court relied on longstanding federal decisions holding that employees may recover liquidated damages alone when wages were paid late. It also relied on the Second Circuit’s statement that the New York and federal liquidated-damages provisions are materially indistinguishable.

The court reasoned that New York’s provision was modeled on the federal provision and therefore carried forward the federal courts’ interpretation allowing recovery for late payments. It also noted that New York Labor Law Article 6 was intended to strengthen employees’ rights to receive wages and that New York’s weekly-payment requirement is stricter than the federal law’s prompt-payment requirement.

Because it found an express private right of action, the court did not decide the plaintiffs’ alternative argument that an implied private right of action exists. The court also declined to decide the constitutionality of a possible liquidated-damages award because no such award had yet been entered.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian denied Buffalo Exchange’s motion to dismiss. The court held that New York Labor Law § 198(1-a) provides an express private right of action for violations of the weekly-payment requirement in § 191 and permits employees to seek liquidated damages equal to wages paid late. The court also declined Buffalo Exchange’s request to stay the case while awaiting a possible New York Court of Appeals decision.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket Entry 30.