Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Background

Patrick Rankine filed a proposed class action against Levi Strauss & Co. under Section 191 of Article 6 of the New York Labor Law. He alleged that he worked as a sales associate from November 2019 through January 2020, that more than 25 percent of his responsibilities involved physical tasks, and that Levi Strauss paid him every two weeks instead of weekly. He alleged that the delayed payments temporarily deprived him of the use of money owed to him and sought liquidated damages.

The opinion notes that Levi Strauss asserted that the proper corporate entity was Levi’s Only Stores, Inc., rather than Levi Strauss & Co. The court’s order nevertheless refers to the defendant as Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s power to hear a case, including whether the plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Levi Strauss also moved, alternatively, to stay, or pause, the case while related appeals were pending.

Standing

The court held that Rankine adequately alleged an injury for purposes of standing. Rankine claimed that receiving wages late caused him to lose the time value of money—the benefit of having access to those funds earlier. The court followed decisions holding that the temporary deprivation of money to which a person is entitled is a concrete injury, even without allegations about a particular investment or financial plan.

The court therefore denied Levi Strauss’s request to dismiss for lack of standing.

Private Right of Action

Levi Strauss argued that Section 191 did not give employees the right to sue for violations of its weekly-payment requirement. The court followed the New York Appellate Division’s decision in Vega, which held that Sections 191 and 198(1-a) provide a private right of action for late payment of wages. The court concluded that Levi Strauss had not presented persuasive evidence that New York’s highest court would reject that interpretation.

The court also concluded that the Supreme Court of New York’s decision in Konkur, which concerned a different Labor Law provision and an implied private right of action, did not undermine Vega. The court held that Sections 191 and 198 provide a private right of action for late payment of wages.

Manual-Worker Allegations

Section 191 requires weekly payment for covered “manual workers,” defined by Section 190(4) as mechanics, workingmen, or laborers. The New York Department of Labor interprets that category to include employees who spend more than 25 percent of their working time performing physical labor.

The court found Rankine’s allegations sufficient to survive dismissal. He alleged that more than 25 percent of his work involved manual labor and identified tasks including unpacking, stocking and organizing inventory, folding clothes, and tending to fitting rooms. The court stated that factual questions about whether he could prove those allegations should be addressed at summary judgment or trial, not on this motion to dismiss.

Request to Stay the Case

Levi Strauss also sought a stay based on appeals in related wage-payment cases. The court explained that the proceedings in one of those cases had changed so that the requested stay principally concerned an appeal in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc.

The court considered the parties’ interests, the burden on Levi Strauss, the interests of the courts and nonparties, and the public interest. It found that Rankine’s interest in proceeding favored him slightly, that Levi Strauss had not shown that discovery would be unduly burdensome, and that waiting for the other case would delay the litigation without necessarily resolving the issues here. The court denied the stay.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Levi Strauss’s motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, to stay proceedings in its entirety. She also denied the separate letter motion seeking a stay of the motion-to-dismiss decision. The order resolves docket entries 20 and 41. It leaves Rankine’s proposed class action pending; the opinion does not decide ultimate liability, class certification, or damages.