Article 6 of the New York Labor Law (Labor Law §§
190-199-a) is a fee-shifting statute, the overall intent of
which is to protect employees from having their rightful
wages kept from them.1 The statute “refl ects the state’s
‘longstanding policy against the forfeiture of earned but
undistributed wages.’”2 To protect employees and rem-
edy the imbalance of power between employers and em-
ployees,3 it allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover unpaid
wages, attorney fees and, unless the employer proves
a good faith basis to believe that its underpayment of
wages was legal, liquidated damages.4
Although passed “to strengthen and clarify the rights
of employees to the payment of wages,”5 Article 6 is
poorly drafted, and courts have struggled to discern its
meaning.6
Two of Article 6’s key provisions are Labor Law
§§ 193 and 198. Labor Law § 193 prohibits any deduc-
tions from an employee’s wages unless the deduction is
authorized and for the employee’s benefi t.7 Labor Law §
198 provides that “All employees shall have the right to
recover full wages, benefi ts and wage supplements and
liquidated damages accrued during the six years previ-
ous to the commencing of such action[.]”8
Some courts narrowly construe § 193 by drawing
a purported distinction between deducting and failing
to pay wages. These courts also overlook § 198’s rights-
affi rming language. As a result, these courts have con-
cluded that Article 6 does not give all employees the right
to recover unpaid wages.
The purported distinction between deducting and
failing to pay wages is illusory and contrary to Labor
Law § 193’s text and purpose. Although “deduction from
wages” is suggestive of a deduction notation on a pay-
stub, the purported distinction between “deducting” and
neglecting to pay wages was implicitly rejected by the
Court of Appeals in Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional
The plaintiff in Ryan sued under Labor Law § 193 to
recover an unpaid, nondiscretionary $175,000 bonus and
attorney fees under Labor Law § 198(1-a). The plaintiff
won at trial, and the Appellate Division affi rmed, as did
the Court of Appeals, which held, inter alia, “Since Ryan’s
bonus…constitutes ‘wages’ within the meaning of Labor
Law § 190(1), Kellogg’s neglect to pay him the bonus
violated Labor Law § 193…”10
Not all courts agree with Ryan’s holding, however.
As a result, there is uncertainty about whether § 193—the
law that prohibits employers from taking even a small
part of an employee’s wages—has a gaping loophole
that exempts employers who take all of an employee’s
wages.11 As detailed herein, Article 6 does not contain any
such loophole, gaping or otherwise.
