Harris v. Old Navy, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-09946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harris v. Old Navy, LLC, Judge Woods denied Old Navy’s motion to dismiss claims under New York Labor Law Section 191.
The ruling allows Jonelle Harris’s complaint against Old Navy, LLC to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage; it does not decide the ultimate merits of her claims.
What happened
Harris v. Old Navy, LLC concerns Jonelle Harris’s claims under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law and whether she could bring them privately and had standing to do so. A magistrate judge recommended denying Old Navy’s motion to dismiss.
Old Navy objected to the recommendations about a private right to sue under Section 191 and Harris’s standing. After reviewing those issues anew, the court agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis, including the conclusion that New York courts would follow the reasoning in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC.
Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation in full and denied Old Navy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The order did not decide whether Harris will ultimately prevail on her claims.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Old Navy, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09946
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 20, 2023
Background
Jonelle Harris sued Old Navy, LLC individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion does not repeat the case’s factual and procedural history; it refers readers to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The dispute addressed claims under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law, including whether that statute permits a private right of action and whether Harris has standing to pursue her claims.
On November 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended denying Old Navy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Old Navy timely objected to the recommendations concerning Section 191 and standing. Harris filed a response.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviews objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation anew, while reviewing unobjected-to portions for clear error. The court found no clear error in the unobjected-to portions and reviewed the challenged portions anew.
The court agreed with the Report and Recommendation’s analysis and adopted its conclusions in full. It concluded that the New York Court of Appeals would follow the First Department’s decision in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC. Applying the three-factor test described in Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC, the court agreed that a private right of action can be implied for claims under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law.
The Report and Recommendation had questioned, in dicta, whether Vega correctly interpreted the statutory term “underpayment.” The district court stated that it did not need to adopt that discussion to deny the motion and did not do so. The court also noted that delayed payment can deprive a worker of the time value of money and that this reasoning could support treating late payment as an underpayment.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Old Navy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 23. The order allowed the complaint to proceed past the dismissal stage but did not determine ultimate liability or whether Harris will prevail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.