throbber
Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 712
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`MD ISLAM, DOH OUATTARA, ABDUL
`RUMON, HARNEK SINGH, and NEW YORK
`TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`20-CV-2328 (LDH)
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF THE
`STATE OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK
`STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and
`ROBERTA REARDON, as COMMISSIONER OF
`LABOR,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
`
`
`
`MD Islam, Doh Ouattara, Abdul Rumon, and Harnek Singh (collectively “Individual
`
`Plaintiffs”), and New York Taxi Workers Alliance (“NYTWA”) bring the instant action pursuant
`
`to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York; the New York Department
`
`of Labor (“NYDOL”); and Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of Labor; alleging violation of Title
`
`III of the Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. et seq. § 501 and the Equal Protection Clause of
`
`the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for failure to pay unemployment insurance
`
`benefits when due. Plaintiffs move pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`for a preliminary injunction: (1) enjoining Defendants to immediately pay unemployment
`
`insurance benefits to Individual Plaintiffs and all app-based For-Hire Vehicle (“FHV”) driver
`
`claimants (“FHV claimants”); (2) enjoining Defendants to require app-based FHV employers
`
`doing business in New York to provide wage and earnings data to New York State or, in the
`
`alternative, enjoining the NYDOL to create a streamlined process through which it can
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 713
`
`
`
`immediately determine monetary eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of all FHV
`
`claimants by allowing such claimants to self-attest to their gross quarterly earnings; and (3)
`
`granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`BACKGROUND1
`
`I.
`
`Administrative Framework for Issuance of Unemployment Insurance Benefits
`
`All federal-state cooperative unemployment insurance programs are financed in part by
`
`grants from the United States pursuant to the Social Security Act. States are eligible to receive
`
`payments to finance the administration of their unemployment insurance programs only after the
`
`Secretary of Labor certifies that “[their] programs provide for such methods of administration . . .
`
`as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of
`
`unemployment compensation when due . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 303(a)(1) (emphasis added). This
`
`provision is commonly known as the “when due” clause.
`
`Echoing the language from the Social Security Act, the federal implementing regulations
`
`require state unemployment insurance programs to provide for “such methods of administration
`
`as will reasonably ensure the full payment of unemployment benefits to eligible claimants with
`
`the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3(a). To that end, the
`
`regulations demand that the state “obtain promptly and prior to a determination of an individual’s
`
`right to benefits, such facts pertaining thereto as will be sufficient reasonably to insure the
`
`payment of benefits when due.” Id. Part 602, App. A, Section 6013(A). This requirement
`
`embraces five separate elements, which, inter alia, place the responsibility of initiating discovery
`
`
`1 The following findings of fact are taken from the declarations in support of the parties’ memoranda of law, the
`preliminary injunction hearing held on July 2, 2020; July 13, 2020; and July 16, 2020, and public sources, of which
`the Court takes judicial notice. In taking judicial notice of certain documents, the Court looks only to what
`statements the documents contain and “not for the truth of the matter asserted.” Beauvoir v. Israel, 794 F3d 244,
`248 n.4 (2d Cir. 2015)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 714
`
`
`
`of necessary information on the state agency, permit the state agency to obtain the necessary
`
`information from the worker, the employer, or other sources, and provide that any state agency
`
`investigation should not be so exhaustive and time-consuming as to unduly delay the payment of
`
`benefits. Id.
`
`At the state level, to facilitate the issuance of unemployment benefits, New York Labor
`
`Law requires, among other things, that an employer “keep a true and accurate record of each
`
`person employed by him . . . and the amount of remuneration paid to each . . . .” N.Y. Labor
`
`Law § 575. Moreover, an employer is required to “file a quarterly combined withholding, wage
`
`reporting and unemployment insurance return . . . and such other related information as the
`
`commissioner of taxation and finance or the commissioner of labor, as applicable, may
`
`prescribe.” N.Y. Tax Law § 674(a)(4)(A).
`
`Critically, the NYDOL uses wage and earnings data to assess whether a claimant
`
`qualifies for unemployment insurance benefits. See N.Y. Labor Law § 527; (June 17, 2020 Decl.
`
`Laura Campion (“Campion Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–5, ECF No. 12-1.) Indeed, the NYDOL’s current
`
`practice is to, in the first instance, rely on wage and earnings data submitted by employers—to
`
`the exclusion of other sources—to make initial eligibility determinations. (See July 13, 2020
`
`Prelim. Inj. Hr’ng Tr. (“July 13 Tr.”) 27:4–13.) Once an initial eligibility determination is made,
`
`the NYDOL provides a notice to claimants through a Monetary Benefit Determination (“MBD”),
`
`which includes a determination of eligibility or ineligibility for benefits, the wages that the
`
`NYDOL used to calculate benefits, and the determined weekly benefit amount for the claimant.
`
`(Campion Decl. ¶ 5.) The maximum weekly benefit rate is $504.2 See N.Y. Dep’t Labor
`
`
`2 Weekly unemployment insurance benefits are calculated in accordance with New York Labor Law § 590(5), which
`establishes the rate as one twenty-sixth of the high quarter wages paid in a claimant’s base period, except if the
`claimant’s high quarter wages are three-thousand, five hundred and seventy five dollars or less, the weekly benefit
`rate is one twenty-fifth of the high quarter wages. See N.Y. Labor Law §590(5). Additionally, if a claimant only has
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 715
`
`
`
`Unempl. Ins. Handbook VIII (2020), https://www.labor.ny.gov/formsdocs/ui/TC318.3e.pdf.
`
`When wage and earnings data is not provided to the NYDOL by the employer, a claimant’s
`
`MBD is assessed at $0.00 in earnings, rendering the claimant ineligible to receive unemployment
`
`insurance benefits. (See June 17, 2020 Decl. Diane M. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”) ¶¶ 9–10, ECF
`
`No. 12-4; See July 14, 2020 Suppl. Decl. Stephen Geskey (“Suppl. Geskey Decl.”) ¶ 8, ECF No.
`
`19-4.)
`
`Where a claimant seeks to challenge an initial determination, the burden shifts to the
`
`claimant to request reconsideration. See N.Y. Labor Law § 620(1)(a) (“A claimant who is
`
`dissatisfied with an initial determination of his or her claim for benefits or any other party,
`
`including any employer . . . may, within thirty days after the mailing or personal delivery of
`
`notice of such determination, request a hearing.”). At this juncture, the claimant may provide
`
`additional source information in support of his or her claim, including Form 1099-MISC (“1099
`
`tax form”) and Form 1040 (“1040 tax form”). (See July 13 Tr. 24:25–25:9.) If the NYDOL
`
`determines, based upon the information provided by the claimant, the employer, or a
`
`combination thereof, that additional wages should have been included in the calculation of the
`
`weekly benefit, then the weekly benefit is recalculated, and a new MBD is issued. See UI
`
`Handbook at 11. A claimant may request a referee’s hearing regarding any adverse
`
`determination, including for any adverse determination associated with the initial MBD or a
`
`request for reconsideration. See generally N.Y. Labor Law § 620; N.Y. Dep’t Labor Unempl.
`
`Ins. Handbook VI-VIII, 34-36. In the event that of an adverse decision to the claimant, the
`
`claimant may appeal that decision to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeals
`
`Board (the “UIAB”) by filing notice of appeal within twenty days of the decision. N.Y. Labor
`
`
`two or three quarters of earnings in their base period, and the high quarter is greater than four thousand dollars, the
`high quarter wages will be calculated based on the average of claimant’s two highest quarters. Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 716
`
`
`
`Law § 621(1); (Campion Decl. ¶ 18.) If the UIAB renders a decision adverse to the claimant, the
`
`claimant may then appeal the UIAB’s decision to the New York State Appellate Division of the
`
`Supreme Court, Third Department. N.Y. Labor Law § 624; (Campion Decl. ¶ 19.) Employers
`
`too share this right to appeal. (See Campion Decl. ¶ 23.) The statutes do not prescribe a time
`
`frame in which these appeals must be resolved. See N.Y. Labor Law §§ 620–626. In the case of
`
`certain Individual Plaintiffs, the reconsideration process took nearly three months. (See Suppl.
`
`Geskey Decl. ¶¶ 23–27.)
`
`By contrast, according to the NYDOL, if a claimant is eligible for benefits, “[their] first
`
`payment will generally be made two to three weeks from the time [they] file [their] claim.” N.Y.
`
`Dep’t Labor Unempl. Ins. Handbook 14.
`
`II.
`
`App-Based FHV Companies3
`
`
`
`As early as 2016, the NYDOL determined that three Uber driver claimants, employed
`
`between November 2015 and August 2016; in April 2016; and between August 2014 and
`
`September 2015, respectively, and those similarly situated to them were employees of Uber for
`
`the purpose of unemployment insurance benefits. See In the Matter of Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`
`UIAB Nos. 596722–596727 (Jul. 12, 2018) at 1, 7 (citing specific determinations made by the
`
`NYDOL). In 2018, the UIAB affirmed those determinations. Id. at 10. Nonetheless, Uber and
`
`other app-based FHV companies have, by and large, maintained that drivers since then are self-
`
`employed. (See July 2, 2020 Prelim. Inj. Hr’ng Tr. 28:10–29:20.) Consistent with that position,
`
`app-based FHV companies have not universally provided driver wage and earnings data to the
`
`NYDOL. (See id. at 26:2–6, 64:8–20.) Moreover, where the NYDOL has made individual
`
`
`3 For the purpose of this memorandum and order, app-based FHV companies are defined as those companies that
`provide pre-arranged transportation to passengers under a super class of licenses issued by the Taxi & Limousine
`Commission (“TLC”). See NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission, For-Hire Vehicle Bases, (2020),
`https://www1.nyc.gov/site/tlc/businesses/for-hire-vehicle-bases.page. This includes Uber, Lyft, Via, and Juno.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 717
`
`
`
`determinations that FHV claimants are employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits,
`
`app-based FHV companies have often appealed those determinations. For example, there have
`
`been approximately, 294 cases where NYDOL has determined the Uber is an employer and Uber
`
`has appealed 227 of those cases. (July 6, 2020 Decl. of Stephen Geskey (“Geskey Decl.”) ¶ 16.)
`
`There have been approximately 78 cases where the NYDOL determined Lyft to be an employer,
`
`and Lyft has challenged that determination in 11 cases. (Id. ¶ 14.) And, there have been
`
`approximately 11 cases where the NYDOL determined Juno to be an employer, and Juno has
`
`challenged 9 of those determinations. (Id. ¶ 15.) Further complicating this process, app-based
`
`FHV companies often abandon these appeals—Uber abandoned 204 of its 227 appeals, Lyft
`
`abandoned 9 of its 11 appeals, and Juno abandoned 3 of its 9 appeals. (Id. ¶¶ 14–16.) Appeals
`
`involving each of these companies remain pending. (Id.)
`
`
`
`As with all employers, if after a final determination, an app-based FHV employer fails to
`
`file a combined withholding wage reporting and/or an unemployment insurance return, or if the
`
`filing is incomplete, the Commissioner of Labor is required to determine the amount of wages
`
`paid by the employer on the basis of information as may be available. (See id. ¶ 4.) To ensure
`
`the accuracy of this assessment, the NYDOL may conduct an audit of the employer. (See id. ¶¶
`
`17–32.) Notably, the status of any outstanding administrative hearing impacts the NYDOL’s
`
`pursuit of an audit against that app-based FHV company. (Id. ¶ 9.) As a matter of practice,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 718
`
`
`
`where an employer abandons a hearing while pursuing others, a tactic app-based FHV companies
`
`often employ, the NYDOL will wait to pursue action. (Id. ¶ 10.)
`
`III. The Plaintiffs
`
`A. MD Islam
`
`Islam was employed by Lyft as a driver from 2014 until March 15, 2020, when he was
`
`forced to stop working as a result of COVID-19. (May 23, 2020 Decl. of MD Islam “Islam
`
`Decl.” ¶ 3, ECF No. 7-2.) He was previously employed by Juno as a driver from 2016 to 2019.
`
`(Id.) Lyft and Juno have reported Islam’s earnings on 1099 tax forms. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`
`On March 24, 2020, Islam applied for unemployment insurance benefits. (Id. ¶ 6.) On
`
`March 27, 2020, a NYDOL representative informed Islam by phone that he needed to fax his
`
`1099 tax form along with one sample weekly paystub from each of his employers. (Id. ¶ 8.)
`
`Islam faxed the requested documents to the NYDOL the following day. (Id. ¶ 9.) On April 27,
`
`2020, Islam received notice that he was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits based
`
`upon a March 30, 2020 MBD showing $0.00 in earnings. (Id. ¶ 11.) On April 28, 2020, Islam
`
`filed a request for reconsideration. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 12.) At the time the complaint was filed on
`
`May 25, 2020, Islam had no income, no savings, and had not received any payment of
`
`unemployment insurance benefits. (Islam Decl. ¶¶ 15, 19.)
`
`B.
`
`Doh Ouattara
`
`Ouattara was employed by both Uber and Lyft as a driver from 2016 until March 18,
`
`2020 when he was forced to stop working as a result of COVID-19. (May 24, 2020 Decl. of Doh
`
`Ouattara (“Ouattara Decl.”) ¶ 3, 5, ECF No. 7-3.) Uber and Lyft have reported Ouattara’s
`
`earnings on 1099 tax forms. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 719
`
`
`
`On April 1, 2020, Ouattara applied for unemployment benefits. (Id. ¶ 6.) On or about
`
`April 14, 2020, a NYDOL employee informed Ouattara that because he worked as a driver for
`
`Uber, he would be considered self-employed. (Id. ¶ 9.) On May 13, 2020, Ouattara received
`
`notice that he was deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits based upon an April 24, 2020
`
`MBD showing $0.00 in earnings. (Id. ¶ 10.) The same day, he filed a request for
`
`reconsideration, along with records showing his earnings from Uber and Lyft.4 (Id. ¶ 11.) At the
`
`time the complaint was filed on May 25, 2020, Ouattara had no income, no savings, and had not
`
`received any payment of unemployment benefits. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17.)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Abdul Rumon
`
`Rumon was employed by Uber and Lyft as a driver from 2016 until March 8, 2020 when
`
`he was forced to stop working as a result of COVID-19. (June 22, 2020 Decl. of Abdul Rumon
`
`(“Rumon Decl.”) ¶ 3, 6, ECF No. 13-1.) Uber and Lyft have reported Rumon’s earnings on 1099
`
`tax forms. (Id. ¶ 4.) Additionally, Rumon worked part-time at Subway during 2018 and 2019,
`
`where his earnings were reported on a Form W-2. (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`
`
`On March 20, 2020, Rumon applied for unemployment insurance benefits. (Id. ¶ 7.) On
`
`April 1, 2020, an NYDOL representative informed Rumon that he should receive unemployment
`
`insurance benefits based on his Uber and Lyft earnings, but that he would need to fax copies of
`
`his 1099 tax forms from Uber and Lyft to the NYDOL. (Id. ¶ 9–10.) Rumon faxed the requested
`
`forms the following day. (Id. ¶ 11.)
`
`
`
`On April 9, 2020, Rumon received his first unemployment insurance benefit payment,
`
`but at a weekly benefit rate of only $155—based solely on his earnings from Subway. (Id. ¶ 12.)
`
`
`4 According to Ouattara, on May 13, 2020, he submitted a request for reconsideration of his MBD to the NYDOL.
`(Ouattara Decl. ¶ 11.) However, according to Defendants, the NYDOL has no record that he filed such a request.
`(Taylor Decl. ¶ 12.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 720
`
`
`
`On or about April 10, 2020, Rumon received his MBD from the NYDOL, which only showed
`
`wages earned from Subway and did not reflect any earnings for his employment with either Uber
`
`or Lyft. (Id. ¶ 13.) On April 15, 2020, Rumon filed a request for reconsideration of his MBD to
`
`the NYDOL, which was still pending at the time the complaint was filed on May 25, 2020. (Id. ¶
`
`14; see also Taylor Decl. ¶ 12.) At the time the complaint was filed on May 25, 2020, Rumon
`
`was only receiving $155 in weekly unemployment insurance benefits. (Rumon Decl. ¶ 22.)
`
`Rumon is the sole provider for his wife and three minor children. (Id. ¶ 16.) $155 per week
`
`amount does not cover their most basic expenses. (Id. ¶ 23.)
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Harnek Singh5
`
`On or about March 23, 2020, Singh applied for unemployment insurance benefits. (See
`
`Taylor Decl. ¶ 3, Table A.) Singh identified on his application that he had performed work
`
`during the base period for an app-based FHV company. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9.) The app-based FHV
`
`company did not consider Singh an employee and did not report Singh’s earnings as wages. (Id.
`
`¶ 9.) On April 1, 2020, Singh was issued an MBD showing $0.00 in earnings, rendering him
`
`ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) On April 28, 2020, Singh
`
`filed a request for reconsideration of his MBD. (Id. ¶ 12.) Singh was issued a new monetary
`
`determination with the maximum rate of $504 as of July 13, 2020. (Gesky Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 24–
`
`26.)
`
`
`
`E.
`
`NYTWA
`
`NYTWA is a not-for-profit membership-based organization for New York City Taxi and
`
`Limousine Commission (“TLC”) licensed drivers. (May 28, 2020 Decl. Bhairavi Desai ¶ 1, ECF
`
`No. 7-4.) Founded in 1998, the organization has more than 23,000 members, and approximately
`
`
`5 The Court notes that Plaintiffs failed to provide a declaration as to Harnek Singh. The Court’s findings of fact as to
`Singh are therefore limited and derive from the declarations submitted by Defendants.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 721
`
`
`
`half of them drive for app-based FHV companies including Uber, Lyft, and Via. (Id. ¶ 2.)
`
`Traditionally, NYTWA provides a broad range of services for its members including: discount
`
`representation for DMV tickets and TLC matters; advocacy for victims of crime and wage theft;
`
`and assistance applying for low-interest loans, life insurance, health insurance, disability and
`
`workers compensation, and other benefits programs (including unemployment insurance
`
`benefits). (Id. ¶ 3.) The organization also runs advocacy campaigns for law and regulatory
`
`changes at the local, state, and federal levels, which seek to protect the long-term interests of
`
`drivers. (Id.)
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
`
`
`
`Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942, 1943, 201 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2018) (per curiam) (internal
`
`quotations and citation omitted). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1)
`
`irreparable harm; (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the
`
`merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and (3) that a preliminary
`
`injunction is in the public interest.” N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Fed’n,
`
`Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018). Where, as here, plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction—
`
`one that “alter[s] the status quo by commanding some positive act”—a higher standard applies.
`
`Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs
`
`seeking a mandatory injunction must show “a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the
`
`merits.” N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Trans. Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 294 (2d Cir. 2012).
`
`The “‘clear’ or ‘substantial’ showing requirement . . . alters the traditional [preliminary
`
`injunction] formula by requiring that the movant[s] demonstrate a greater likelihood of success.”
`
`Tom Doherty Assocs., 60 F.3d at 34.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 722
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`This case comes before the Court as our nation is in the midst of an unprecedented health
`
`crisis. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, workers across the nation have faced
`
`layoffs and furloughs at numbers rivaling those during the Great Depression. See Heather Long
`
`and Andrew Van Dam, U.S. unemployment rate soars to 14.7 percent, the worst since the
`
`Depression era, N.Y. Times (May 8, 2020),
`
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/08/april-2020-jobs-report/. The State of
`
`New York has not been immune. Since mid-March, the state has received more than 1.6 million
`
`unemployment insurance claims. See Patrick McGeehan, ‘I Cry Night and Day’: How It Took
`
`One Woman 8 Weeks to Get Unemployment, (May 8, 2020),
`
`https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/nyregion/unemployment-benefits-ny-coronavirus.html;
`
`(see generally June 17, 2020 Decl. Yvonne Martinez, ECF 12-3.) The state has by and large met
`
`this challenge, as officials have undertaken tremendous efforts to deliver benefits to its citizens,
`
`notwithstanding that doing so has strained the state’s resources. (See generally June 17, 2020
`
`Decl. of John Dougherty (“Dougherty Decl.”), ECF No. 12-2.) These efforts are laudable. Yet,
`
`the issues that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims far predate the current circumstances that we as a
`
`nation find ourselves. The COVID-19 pandemic has served only to exacerbate the problem, and
`
`it must be remedied.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Will Suffer Imminent Irreparable Harm
`
`“A showing of irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance
`
`of a preliminary injunction.” Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118
`
`(2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “To satisfy the irreparable harm
`
`requirement, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that absent a preliminary injunction they will suffer an
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 723
`
`
`
`injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent, and one that cannot be
`
`remedied if a court waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm.” Grand River Enter. Six
`
`Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`
`Significantly, Plaintiffs need only show “a threat of irreparable harm, not that irreparable harm
`
`already ha[s] occurred.” Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 2010).
`
`
`
`It has long been recognized that protracted denial of subsistence benefits constitutes
`
`irreparable harm. See Morel v. Giuliani, 927 F. Supp. 622, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (finding
`
`irreparable harm where New York City regularly failed to provide “aid continuing” benefits, in
`
`violation of federal and state law), amended, 94-CV-4415, 1996 WL 627730 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15,
`
`1996). To indigent persons, the loss of even a portion of subsistence benefits results in injury
`
`that cannot be rectified through the payment of benefits at a later date. See id. (collecting cases).
`
`The reason for this should be obvious. Subsistence benefits by definition are those that provide
`
`for the most basic needs. As such, when the outright denial or undue delay in the provision of
`
`subsistence benefits is at issue, courts have not hesitated to utilize the extraordinary remedy of
`
`preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Willis v. Lascaris, 499 F. Supp. 749, 759–60 (N.D.N.Y.
`
`1980) (enjoining reduction in food stamp allowances); Hurley v. Toia, 432 F. Supp. 1170, 1176–
`
`78 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (granting preliminary injunction and staying enforcement regulation
`
`authorizing termination or reduction of public assistance benefits prior to affording hearing),
`
`aff’d, 573 F.2d 1291 (2d Cir. 1977); Boddie v. Wyman, 323 F. Supp. 1189, 1193 (N.D.N.Y.
`
`1970) (“There is no doubt . . . that the differences sought in payments by the plaintiff are
`
`extremely important in respect to these things daily and in that sense when the day passes the
`
`injury or harm that may occur is irreparable.”), aff’d, 434 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1970), aff’d, 402
`
`U.S. 991, 91 S.Ct. 2168, 29 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1971).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 724
`
`
`
`
`
`That unemployment insurance benefits fall into the category of subsistence benefits
`
`cannot be credibly disputed. Indeed, the vitalness of unemployment insurance benefits is
`
`codified in New York Labor Law, which recognizes that “[e]conomic insecurity due to
`
`unemployment is a serious menace to the health, welfare, and morale of the people of this state.”
`
`N.Y. Labor Law § 501. This is all the more true against the backdrop of the current health crisis
`
`ravaging this nation—a crisis which has led to almost unprecedented unemployment across
`
`various sectors, including the app-based FHV industry.
`
`
`
`According to Plaintiffs, unemployment insurance benefits due to FHV claimants have
`
`been delayed or altogether denied by systemic failures at the NYDOL, in violation of the “when
`
`due” clause of the Social Security Act. For the reasons, discussed in full in section II infra, the
`
`Court agrees. Without unemployment insurance benefits, Individual Plaintiffs and other app-
`
`based FHV members of NYTWA will be unable to meet their basic needs including, among
`
`other things, paying for groceries, housing, car insurance, and phone bills. (See Rumon Decl. ¶¶
`
`24–32; Islam Decl. ¶¶ 20–26; Ouattara Decl. ¶¶ 15–21.). The economic realities of an FHV
`
`claimant are set out in heart-wrenching detail in the declarations of Individual Plaintiffs.
`
`The consequence of these delays and denials has had a cascading effect upon NYTWA.
`
`Non-profit organizations are deemed to suffer irreparable harm when governmental action forces
`
`them to divert resources away from their organizational missions. See Make the Rd. New York v.
`
`Cuccinelli, 419 F. Supp. 3d 647, 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (granting preliminary injunction where
`
`federal government’s implementation of rule hindered immigrant advocacy groups’ ability to
`
`carry out their missions and force them to “expend substantial resources to mitigate its
`
`potentially adverse effects”); Step By Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112,
`
`134–35 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (granting preliminary injunction where, as a result of a municipality’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 725
`
`
`
`zoning law, “plaintiff's goal of providing housing and services to those suffering from mental
`
`illness [was] thwarted by each passing day”) (internal quotations omitted). Such is the case with
`
`respect to NYTWA.6
`
`
`
`NYTWA has more than 23,000 members and approximately half of them drive for app-
`
`based FHV companies, including Uber, Lyft, and Via. (Desai Decl. ¶ 2.) Traditionally, the
`
`organization provides a broad range of services for its members including advocacy campaigns,
`
`assisting workers to combat wage theft by employers, and assisting workers applying for benefits
`
`programs.
`
`At least 85% of the app-based members who have recently requested help from NYTWA
`
`have applied for unemployment insurance benefits. (Desai Decl. ¶ 11.) The vast majority of
`
`these members have not received the full amount of benefits to which they are entitled. (See Sec.
`
`Suppl. Decl. Bhairavi Desai (“Desai Sec. Suppl. Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 18-1.) As a consequence,
`
`NYTWA staff have spent considerable resources and time counseling members who drive for
`
`app-based FHV companies to assist them with obtaining unemployment insurance benefits,
`
`including navigating the request for reconsideration process. (Desai Decl. ¶ 21; June 22, 2020
`
`Bhairavi Desai Suppl. Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 13-2; see also July 15, 2020 Decl. Ibrahim Diallo ¶ 6
`
`
`6 The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ attempt to distinguish the cases cited by Plaintiff on this point. (See
`Defs.’ Third Supp. Br. 1–3, ECF No. 21 (attempting to distinguish Make the Rd. New York v. Cuccinelli, 419 F.
`Supp. 3d 647, 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) and Step By Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112, 134–35
`(N.D.N.Y. 2016).) With respect to Make the Rd. New York, Defendants first argue that the case is inapposite
`because there, the plaintiffs sought a prohibitive injunction and here, Plaintiffs seek a mandatory
`injunction. Relying on a case issued out of the Southern District of New York, Defendants contend that where a
`plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, a heightened standard of irreparable harm applies. Not necessarily so. As
`the Second Circuit has stated, a mandatory injunction should issue “upon a clear showing that the moving party is
`entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of
`preliminary.” See Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995). As the Court has
`already indicated and as will discuss at length later in this opinion, Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that they are
`entitled to relief. No heightened standard for irreparable harm applies. Defendants next argue that NYTWA has not
`offered “declarations extensively describing and calculating” the diversion resources that were the “direct and
`inevitable consequence of the impending implementation of the [immigration] Rule” as relied upon by the
`Court. Make the Rd. New York, 419 F.Supp.3d at 665. The Court simply disagrees.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02328-LDH-CLP Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 726
`
`
`
`ECF No. 20-1.) For example, since March 23, 2020, the organization has responded to over
`
`4,000 phone calls and 1,000 emails from members needing guidance related to unemployment
`
`insurance benefits. (Desai Decl. ¶ 6.) NYTWA staff have also had to conduct regular online
`
`workshops to address drivers’ unemployment issues. (See Desai Sec. Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4.) Time
`
`spent assisting app-based members with their unemployment insurance claims during the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic has diverted staff resources from other traditional organizational priorities
`
`such as combatting wage theft by employers, seeking debt forgiveness for taxi drivers,
`
`organizing for personal protective equipment for drivers, and providing assistance to the families
`
`of recently deceased members. (Desai Decl. ¶¶ 21–22.)
`
`Put simply, the Court is convinced that the NYDOL’s denial or delay of unemployment
`
`benefits to FHV claimants is sufficient to establish irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
`
`Defendants seek to avoid this finding by arguing that Individual Plaintiffs’ claims of
`
`harm have been addressed since the filing of the complaint. (Defs.’ Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj.
`
`(“Defs.’ Opp’n”) 9–10, ECF No. 12.) That is, since the filing of the action, Individual Plaintiffs
`
`are now receiving the maximum amount of benefits allowed under law either through
`
`unemployment insurance or other governmental programs. (Id.) In effect, according to
`
`Defendants, Individual Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. Not so. As a threshold matter, an action will
`
`not be deemed moot where the voluntary cessation of the complained-of conduct occurred after
`
`filing, and the party can be reasonably expected to repeat the offensive conduct in the future. See
`
`De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 318 (1974) (collecting cases); Morel, 927 F. Supp. at 635
`
`(rejecting argument that plaintiffs’ claims are moot because they have received either aid
`
`continuing benefits or a notice of decision following a hearing). Moreover, an issue will not be
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket