A Manhattan judge has rejected an appeals court precedent in concluding that two beauty salon workers may claim they were fired in retaliation for complaining they had been denied overtime pay, saying the appellate ruling "mistakenly construes" a ruling that court had issued 10 years earlier. The judge noted the panel in the 2009 case had relied on a statement in a 1999 ruling that "there are no provisions governing overtime in the New York Labor Law," but did not take into account other aspects of the earlier decision.
August 30, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A Manhattan judge has rejected an Appellate Division, 2nd Department, precedent in concluding that two beauty salon workers may claim they were fired in retaliation for complaining that they had been denied overtime pay.
Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman in Ji v. Belle World Beauty, 603228/08, concluded that the 2nd Department’s 2009 case “mistakenly construes” a ruling that court had issued 10 years earlier.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
