Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kratzert v. White Lodging Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 8, 2010

JEANNA L. KRATZERT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WHITE LODGING SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Defendant moves (Dkt. No. 8) to dismiss this diversity action on the ground that section 206-c of the New York Labor Law ("Labor Law") does not create a private right of action. Section 206-c does not expressly authorize a private right of action; thus, under New York law, such a right exists only if it "may fairly be implied" from a reading of the statute. See Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 629, 633 (1989). The essential factors to be considered are: "(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme." Id. The third factor -- the consistency of such a right with the legislative scheme -- is the "most important[]." Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 325 (1983). Here, plaintiff's complaint fails, as a matter of law, to meet the third factor; there is nothing in the statute or its legislative history to suggest that creation of a private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme. To the contrary, it is clear from the statute and the overall structure of the Labor Law that, as with a number of other statutes concerning workplace conditions, the legislative goal was to improve workplace conditions generally and not to establish a vehicle for the compensation of particular individuals. See, e.g., Browne v. I.H.O.P., 2005 WL 1889799 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2005) (Labor Law § 162); Carrube v. New York City Transit Auth., 738 N.Y.S.2d 67 (2d Dep't 2002) (Labor Law §§ 162, 166)*fn1 ; Gain v. Eastern Reinforcing Serv., Inc., 603 N.Y.S.2d 189, 191-92 (3d Dep't 1993) (Labor Law § 202-h). An employee aggrieved by a violation of section 206-c may pursue the administrative enforcement procedures authorized by section 21 of the Labor Law.

It is therefore

ORDERED that defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 8) is granted and the complaint dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.