Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Wage Claims under Labor Law: Executives Need Not Apply
Wage claims under Section 191 of the Labor Law are a handy gadget in a plaintiff's toolbox. Such statutory claims provide not merely for recovery of lost wages but also liquidated damages equal to 25% of the total wages due as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Section 191, however, has an Achilles heel, and that is its application to supervisors and executives or, better put, its inapplicability to them. Although no express exclusion appears in the statute, courts have divided over the definition of “employee” and whether it includes executives. Some courts have interpreted the definition broadly to include them. See, e.g., Daley v. The Related Cos., 179 A.D.2d 55 (1st Dep't 1992); Cohen v. Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, 1996 WL 159096 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). In contrast, the New York Court of Appeals applied the Labor Law only to non-supervisory personnel in the leading case Gottlieb v. Laub & Co., 82 N.Y.2d 457 (1993). A number of other courts have followed suit. See, e.g., Taylor v. Blaylock & Partners, 240 A.D.2d 289, 292 (1st Dep't 1997).
Judge Carter of the Southern District recently weighed in on the topic and adopted the Gottlieb court's interpretation of the statute in denying executives refuge under Labor Law Section 191. In that case, the executive was the former CEO of defendant. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Labor Law wages claim and his effort to recover his attorneys' fees under Section 198 of the Labor Law.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.