Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Konkur v. Turkish Cultural Center & Highway Education, Inc.

Posted on 2020-10-16

The question in this case is whether a private right of action exists under Labor Law § 198-b.

Labor Law § 198-b prohibits kickbacks in employment. Specifically, the provision states that “it shall be unlawful for any person . . . to request, demand, or receive” an employee’s wages or other thing of value “upon the statement, representation, or understanding that failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such employee from procuring or retaining employment.” The provision states that “[a] violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor.”

In this case, plaintiff was a teacher at a school run by members of an organization that promoted the teachings of Fetullah Gullen. According to plaintiff, the organization was a cult that repeatedly pressured him to make financial contributions. Plaintiff understood that he would lose his job if he failed to make those contributions, and so made more than six thousand dollars in donations to the organization over the course of about one year.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff sued the school and related entities, asserting among other things a claim for damages under Labor Law § 198-b. Supreme Court dismissed many of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint, but it sustained the claim under Labor Law § 198-b, finding that the provision created a private right of action. The Fourth Department disagreed on that point, concluding instead that “the legislature did not intend to create a private right of action for violations of Labor Law § 198-b.” This was in apparent conflict with the contrary decision Martinez v. Alubon, Ltd., 111 A.D.3d 500 (1st Dep’t 2013).

The Court of Appeals granted plaintiff leave to appeal.

By Phil on 2020-10-16.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com