You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Shanklin v. Wilhelmina Models, Inc.

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 3732Docket: 6416 653702/13

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 24, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a group of fashion models who brought claims against various model management agencies, challenging their employment status and the non-payment of wages. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court delivered its decision on May 24, 2018, modifying a prior ruling from the Supreme Court, New York County. The primary legal issues revolved around the classification of models as employees under Labor Law, the definition of wages, and the timeliness of contract claims. The court upheld the lower court's determination that 'usage payments' for image rights do not constitute wages under Labor Law Article 6, yet acknowledged that the plaintiffs sufficiently claimed employee status despite being labeled as independent contractors in their agreements. The court reinstated Melissa Baker's claim under Labor Law § 191 against Click Model Management, Inc., while dismissing Vanessa Perron's breach of contract claim against Next Management, LLC, as untimely. Additionally, Michelle Griffin-Trotter's breach of contract claim against Click was found valid, alleging improper deductions from earnings. The ruling elucidates the employment and wage definitions applicable to models under New York law, providing clarity on the models' rights and agency obligations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Definition of Wages under Labor Law Article 6

Application: The court upheld the finding that 'usage payments' for models' images do not qualify as wages under the New York Labor Law.

Reasoning: The court upheld the motion court's finding that 'usage payments' received by models for the use of their images do not qualify as wages under Labor Law Article 6.

Employee Status under Labor Law

Application: The court recognized that models could adequately claim employee status despite being labeled as independent contractors in their contracts.

Reasoning: The court stated that the plaintiffs' tax status is not determinative of their Labor Law status.

Reinstatement of Labor Law Claims

Application: The court reinstated Melissa Baker's Labor Law § 191 claim as she timely alleged non-payment for a specific shoot.

Reasoning: The court reinstated the Labor Law § 191 claim of Melissa Baker against Click Model Management, Inc., as Baker timely alleged non-payment for a specific shoot.

Sufficiency of Pleading in Breach of Contract

Application: Michelle Griffin-Trotter's breach of contract claim was found sufficient, as she pled performance and damages from improper deductions.

Reasoning: The court found that Michelle Griffin-Trotter sufficiently pled her breach of contract claim against Click, including performance and damages from alleged improper deductions from her earnings.

Timeliness of Breach of Contract Claims

Application: Vanessa Perron's breach of contract claim was dismissed as untimely since her contract ended in 2006 and no earnings were alleged to be due thereafter.

Reasoning: Conversely, the court dismissed Vanessa Perron's breach of contract claim against Next Management, LLC, as it was deemed untimely since her contract had ended in 2006, and she failed to allege any earnings due after the specified date.