Anderson v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 317, 833 N.Y.S.2d 1

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 317 (Anderson v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 317, 833 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In assessing the viability of plaintiff’s claim for overtime wages based on violation of 12 NYCRR 142-2.2, the court considered whether defendant had established compliance with the federal “fluctuating workweek” standard, and correctly found issues of fact. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC § 201 et seq.), the fluctuating workweek standard is recognized as an exception to the general requirement that employers pay overtime at IV2 times the employee’s regular wage rate (29 CFR 778.114; see Heder v City of Two Rivs., Wis., 295 F3d 777, 779-780 [7th Cir 2002]). Section 142-2.16 of 12 NYCRR, upon which defendant relies, does not address overtime payments but merely defines the “regular rate” of an employee’s wages. On the other hand, section 142-2.2 provides that under the state Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law § 650 et seq.), overtime shall be paid at IV2 times the regular rate, subject to any exceptions in the federal statute (see Dingwall v Friedman Fisher Assoc., P.C., 3 F Supp 2d 215, 220 [ND NY 1998]). There are questions of fact as to whether the fluctuating workweek standard has been met.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In assessing the viability of plaintiff’s claim for overtime wages based on violation of 12 NYCRR 142-2.2, the court considered whether defendant had established compliance with the federal “fluctuating workweek” standard, and correctly found issues of fact. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC § 201 et seq.), the fluctuating workweek standard is recognized as an exception to the general requirement that employers pay overtime at IV2 times the employee’s regular wage rate (29 CFR 778.114; see Heder v City of Two Rivs., Wis., 295 F3d 777, 779-780 [7th Cir 2002]). Section 142-2.16 of 12 NYCRR, upon which defendant relies, does not address overtime payments but merely defines the “regular rate” of an employee’s wages. On the other hand, section 142-2.2 provides that under the state Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law § 650 et seq.), overtime shall be paid at IV2 times the regular rate, subject to any exceptions in the federal statute (see Dingwall v Friedman Fisher Assoc., P.C., 3 F Supp 2d 215, 220 [ND NY 1998]). There are questions of fact as to whether the fluctuating workweek standard has been met.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 317, 833 N.Y.S.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-ikon-office-solutions-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack