Collins v. Hanesbrands Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-01818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Collins v. Hanesbrands, Judge McMahon denied Hanesbrands Inc.'s motion to dismiss a wage-payment class action.
Shawna Collins and the proposed class of similarly situated Hanesbrands manual workers alleged to have been paid every two weeks rather than weekly.
What happened
Collins v. Hanesbrands Inc. is a proposed class action by Shawna Collins under New York law. Collins alleges that Hanesbrands paid her and other manual workers every two weeks instead of weekly, causing their wages to be paid late.
Hanesbrands asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the claimed damages did not reach $5 million and that New York law did not allow this type of lawsuit. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the allegations plausibly put more than $5 million in dispute and that federal jurisdiction existed.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Hanesbrands Inc.'s motion to dismiss. She concluded that New York Labor Law allows a private lawsuit for late payment of wages, so Collins's claim could proceed past the dismissal stage.
The detailed version
- Collins v. Hanesbrands Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01818
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 8, 2023
Background
Shawna Collins brought a proposed class action against Hanesbrands Inc. She asserted one claim under New York Labor Law § 191, which generally requires manual workers to be paid weekly. Collins alleged that she worked for Hanesbrands from approximately October 2021 through January 2023 and performed more than 25% physical labor as a Sales Merchandiser at a Macy's store in Yonkers, New York. She alleged that Hanesbrands paid her every two weeks rather than weekly. She sought the unpaid value of the delayed payments as liquidated damages under New York Labor Law § 198(1-a).
Hanesbrands' Motion
Hanesbrands moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
For the jurisdiction argument, Hanesbrands contended that Collins could not recover liquidated damages for a violation of § 191 and therefore could not satisfy the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement for a class action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The court noted that Hanesbrands identified approximately 512 potential class members, with an average employment period of 81.5 weeks and average weekly earnings of approximately $409.36. Based on those figures, the court concluded that the amount in controversy plausibly exceeded $5 million. The court also found that the minimal-diversity requirement was satisfied because Collins was a New York citizen and Hanesbrands was a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina.
For the Rule 12(b)(6) argument, Hanesbrands contended that New York law did not provide a private right of action for late payment under § 191. The court relied on the New York First Department's decision in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC and subsequent decisions in the Second Circuit. It concluded that New York Labor Law § 198(1-a) provides a private right of action for a violation of § 191.
Ruling
The court denied Hanesbrands' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also denied Hanesbrands' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The decision therefore left Collins's proposed class-action claim pending at the motion-to-dismiss stage; the order did not determine the ultimate amount of damages or whether Collins would ultimately prevail.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.