Ramos v. Apple Inc.

Background

Raven Ramos, Jeffrey McNeill, and Tyler O’Neal brought a proposed class action against Apple Inc. They allege that Apple violated Section 191 of the New York Labor Law by paying them every other week rather than weekly. The plaintiffs allege that about 25% of their job responsibilities involved manual tasks, including standing for extended periods, lifting and carrying boxes, and organizing inventory. They seek damages based on the loss of the use of money caused by delayed payment, including liquidated damages.

Motion to dismiss

Apple argued that the New York Labor Law does not give employees a private right of action—the ability to bring a lawsuit themselves—to enforce Section 191’s weekly-payment requirement. Apple alternatively argued that the plaintiffs could recover, at most, lost interest on delayed wages, not liquidated damages.

The court rejected both arguments at this stage. It followed the New York Appellate Division’s decision in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, which held that the New York Labor Law expressly provides a private right of action for violations of Section 191(1)(a). The court found no persuasive reason to conclude that New York’s highest court would reach a different result. It also followed Vega in holding that liquidated damages may be available for untimely payment of wages. The court therefore denied Apple’s motion to dismiss.

The court also acknowledged that an earlier opinion by the same court had stated that the New York Labor Law did not appear to provide liquidated damages for untimely payments. It explained that the earlier statement was unnecessary to that decision and stated that the earlier statement was incorrect.

Class allegations

The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of certain non-managerial Apple employees employed in New York State during the relevant period. Apple asked the court to strike, or remove, the class allegations because the proposed class was allegedly overbroad and included employees who were not manual workers.

Although Apple had not filed the motion in the procedurally proper form, the court treated it as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court explained that motions to strike class allegations are generally disfavored because they can end the class portion of a case before the plaintiffs complete discovery relevant to class certification. The court found that the plaintiffs had clarified that employees whose work was primarily intellectual or managerial were not included in the proposed class. It therefore declined to strike the class allegations at that time.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Apple’s motion to dismiss and denied Apple’s motion to strike the class allegations. The court waived the initial pretrial conference, directed the parties to submit a joint case-management plan and scheduling order by September 27, 2023, and stated that the case would be referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy for general pretrial purposes after review of that order.