Sethy v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sethy v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Judge Ronnie Abrams stayed the case while a New York appellate court considers a related wage-law question.
The stay temporarily pauses the claims brought by Yvette Sethy, Darlene Gonzalez, and the proposed class of manual workers against Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC. The parties must report to the court after the related New York appellate decision.
What happened
In Sethy v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Yvette Sethy and Darlene Gonzalez brought claims under New York labor law for themselves and a proposed class of manual workers employed by Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC.
Victoria’s Secret asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing in part that the labor law does not allow employees to sue for the alleged pay violations. It also asked the court to pause the case while a New York appellate court considered a related question in Grant v. Aircraft Delivery Dispatch, Inc.
Judge Ronnie Abrams stayed the case until that appellate court rules in Grant. The court found that a short pause would not unfairly harm the plaintiffs and that the interests of the defendant, the courts, and the public supported the pause; the parties must file a joint status letter within two weeks after the Grant decision.
The detailed version
- Sethy v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03452
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 19, 2023
Background
Yvette Sethy and Darlene Gonzalez filed this action individually and for a proposed class of manual workers employed by Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC. Their claims arise under Article 6, sections 191 and 198 of the New York Labor Law.
Pending Motions and Related Case
Victoria’s Secret moved to dismiss the action. Among other arguments, it contended that New York Labor Law section 191 does not create a private right of action—that is, a right for an individual to sue. Victoria’s Secret also asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, this case while the Second Department of the New York Appellate Division decided Grant v. Aircraft Delivery Dispatch, Inc., Appellate Division No. 21-03202. Grant concerns whether a plaintiff may sue for alleged pay-frequency violations under New York Labor Law sections 191(1)(a)(1) or 198(1-a), the same type of issue presented here.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied five considerations for deciding whether to issue a stay: the plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding quickly and any harm from delay; the defendant’s interests and burden; the interests of the courts; the interests of nonparties; and the public interest. It concluded that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a brief stay. It also determined that the interests of Victoria’s Secret, the courts, and the public strongly favored waiting for the decision in Grant.
The court explained that a federal court deciding an unresolved state-law issue must determine how New York’s highest court would interpret that law. The Second Department’s decision in Grant could provide useful guidance, and a later decision by the New York Court of Appeals would be binding on the state-law question.
Disposition
The court stayed the action pending the Second Department’s ruling in Grant. It ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter no later than two weeks after Grant is decided. The opinion does not resolve Victoria’s Secret’s motion to dismiss.
Judge
The order was signed by Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge, on July 19, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.