Ventura v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P.

On March 13, 2023, Victoria Ventura (“Plaintiff”), represented by Brett R. Cohen, Jeffrey K. Brown, and Michael A. Tompkins of Leeds Brown Law, P.C., filed a labor lawsuit against H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. (“Defendant”), seeking damages for alleged failure to pay timely wages. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Vernon S. Broderick presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that “throughout the Relevant Period, Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “The timely payment of wages provisions of NYLL § 191 and its supporting regulations apply to Defendant and protect the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class on a timely basis as required by NYLL § 191(1)(a).”

The plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL Article 6 § 191, which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Plaintiff typically performed physical tasks for more than of 25% of her workday, as her responsibilities included, but were not limited to, folding and ironing clothing, moving inventory, receiving, unpacking, organizing, storing, packaging, and labeling merchandise, climbing ladders, maintaining the general upkeep of the store, and generally remaining on her feet for the entirety of her shift.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Plaintiff was compensated every other week, rather than weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of her employment. Thus, for the first half of each bi-weekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that she was temporarily deprived of money owed to her, and she could not save, invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully hers. Accordingly, every day that said money was not paid to her in a timely fashion, she lost the time value of that money.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Additionally, every time Plaintiff received late compensation for the work she performed, she was by definition being underpaid by Defendant. Every time that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees who worked in manual labor positions their wages earned within seven days of the end of their workweeks, Defendant deprived the employees of the use of money that belonged to them.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “Plaintiff and putative class members were unable to do those things that every person does with their money, such as paying bills or buying goods that they needed and/or wanted to buy.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “By retaining these wages earned beyond the legally permitted timeframe set by NYLL § 191, Defendant benefitted from the time value of the money at issue, and the free use of such funds, at the expense of Plaintiff and putative class members.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief for alleged failure to pay timely wages.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award for liquidated damages together with the costs of litigation.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.