Ingrid Pacheco v Catholic Guardian Services
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a claim for unpaid wages can proceed under New York Labor Law § 191 [pertains to the frequency of pay, not unpaid wages] without allegations of improper pay frequency or employee coverage as a clerical worker.
The Supreme Court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action under Labor Law § 191, allowing that claim to proceed.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the § 191 claim and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff did not allege any deviation from the statutory pay frequency required by § 191 and failed to adequately plead she was a covered clerical employee rather than an excluded professional. With no viable claim under § 191 or any Article 6 provision, the derivative claim under Labor Law § 198 [provides the remedies available to an employee who prevails under a substantive provision of article 6] also fails.
Background
Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging nonpayment of wages styled under Labor Law § 191 against a social services employer, Catholic Guardian Services. The complaint did not allege that defendant paid wages at intervals other than those required by § 191 or make any allegations about the frequency of pay. It also did not sufficiently allege plaintiff was a clerical worker covered by § 191, as opposed to a professional employee who is excluded. The Supreme Court had already dismissed the other claims, leaving only the § 191 claim at issue on appeal.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action under Labor Law § 191, while having dismissed the remaining claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted defendant’s motion, dismissed the amended complaint, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The court held that § 191 addresses pay frequency, not unpaid wages; the complaint lacked any allegation of improper pay intervals and inadequately pled coverage as a clerical employee. Consequently, the § 198 remedies claim also failed.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that Labor Law § 191 is limited to frequency-of-pay violations and cannot be used to recover unpaid wages absent allegations of improper pay intervals. Plaintiffs must also plausibly allege coverage (e.g., as clerical rather than professional employees). Without a substantive Article 6 violation, Labor Law § 198 provides no standalone cause of action. The ruling aligns with Vega v CM & Assoc., Gutierrez v Bactolac, Conte v Tri-State, Rosario v Hallen, Shapiro v John T. Mather, Frances v Klein, and Riggi v Charlie Rose.
To state a claim under Labor Law § 191, a plaintiff must allege improper pay frequency and that they are a covered employee; unpaid wage theories and derivative § 198 claims fail without a viable Article 6 violation.