Torres v. Four Seasons Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Four Seasons Hotel

277 A.D.2d 23, 715 N.Y.S.2d 28, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2192, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 2, 1999, which, in an action by plaintiffs room servers against defendant hotel to recover gratuities allegedly improperly pooled in violation of Labor Law § 196-d, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ collective bargaining agent had authority to agree that all disputes, including those involving a violation of an employee’s statutory rights, would be submitted to arbitration and not litigated in court (cf., Wright v Universal Mar. Serv. Corp., 525 US 70, 80; see, Carson v Giant Food, 175 F3d 325, 331-332 [4th Cir]; Matter of American Broadcasting Cos. v Roberts, 61 NY2d 244, 249-250). The arbitration clause in question, which covers “claims arising out of or under this [collective bargaining agreement] or the employee’s employment, including but not limited to any EEOC, ADA, ADEA or other statutory claims,” encompasses the Labor Law claims at issue herein. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 2, 1999, which, in an action by plaintiffs room servers against defendant hotel to recover gratuities allegedly improperly pooled in violation of Labor Law § 196-d, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ collective bargaining agent had authority to agree that all disputes, including those involving a violation of an employee’s statutory rights, would be submitted to arbitration and not litigated in court (cf., Wright v Universal Mar. Serv. Corp., 525 US 70, 80; see, Carson v Giant Food, 175 F3d 325, 331-332 [4th Cir]; Matter of American Broadcasting Cos. v Roberts, 61 NY2d 244, 249-250). The arbitration clause in question, which covers “claims arising out of or under this [collective bargaining agreement] or the employee’s employment, including but not limited to any EEOC, ADA, ADEA or other statutory claims,” encompasses the Labor Law claims at issue herein. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Torres v. Four Seasons Hotel, 277 A.D.2d 23, 715 N.Y.S.2d 28, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2192, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 23 (Torres v. Four Seasons Hotel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related