Gamboa v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Background

Jackson Gamboa and Pedro Rocha brought a class action against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and former employees. They alleged that they worked as animal care technicians and were manual workers under New York Labor Law § 190(4). They claimed Regeneron paid them and other animal-care and aquatic-animal-care technicians on a biweekly schedule instead of weekly.

New York Labor Law § 191 generally requires manual workers to be paid weekly and no later than seven calendar days after the end of the workweek in which the wages were earned, unless the State authorizes another arrangement. The plaintiffs alleged that the delayed payments deprived them of the use of money they were legally owed and sought damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Motion and Arguments

Regeneron moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Regeneron argued that Section 191 does not create an express or implied private right of action—that is, a right for employees to sue an employer directly under the statute.

Regeneron also alternatively sought a stay while the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, considered related issues. The court stated that the Second Department had issued its decision on January 17, 2024, and denied the stay request as moot.

The plaintiffs relied primarily on Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, in which the New York Appellate Division, First Department held that Sections 191 and 198 provide workers with a private right of action for untimely wage payments. Regeneron urged the court to reject Vega and follow the Second Department’s later decision in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., which held that employees do not have an express or implied private right of action for damages based on an employer’s biweekly payment schedule.

Court’s Analysis

Because the New York Court of Appeals had not resolved the conflict between Vega and Grant, the court had to predict how that court would decide the issue. The court agreed with a recent Southern District of New York decision, Zachary v. BG Retail, LLC, which concluded that the Court of Appeals would likely follow Vega rather than Grant.

The court reasoned that Section 198 authorizes employees to bring wage claims for underpayments violating Article 6 of the New York Labor Law, and Section 191 is part of Article 6. The court also relied on Section 191(2), which states that an employee cannot be required, as a condition of employment, to accept wages at intervals other than those provided by the statute. The court concluded that the statutory language and legislative purposes supported allowing employees to sue over violations of the required payment frequency.

The court rejected Regeneron’s arguments based on the statute’s wording, structure, legislative history, and administrative enforcement mechanisms. It also concluded that the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Konkur v. Utica Academy of Science Charter School did not require a different result because Konkur involved a different provision of the Labor Law.

The opinion notes that Regeneron disputed whether the plaintiffs are “manual workers,” but Regeneron did not move to dismiss on that ground. The court therefore did not resolve that issue in this order.

Disposition

The court joined the other Second Circuit district courts that had adopted Vega’s approach and denied Regeneron’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 191 claim. The court also denied Regeneron’s alternative request for a stay as moot. The order did not finally decide whether Regeneron violated Section 191 or whether the plaintiffs qualify as manual workers.