Employment rights for Brooklyn workers

Which courts hear a Brooklyn case

• State court: Supreme Court, Kings County. Its appeals go to the Appellate Division, Second Department. Manhattan and the Bronx are the only two counties in the First Department.
• Federal court: the Eastern District of New York, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau and Suffolk — a very large share of New York employment litigation.

You may have a choice. A case can often be brought in the county where you live, where the employer has its principal office, or where much of what happened took place, so a Brooklyn worker for a Manhattan company may be able to file in either department. See which court decides my case.

Where Brooklyn law differs from Manhattan

New York’s appellate departments do not always agree, and the Second Department’s answer is the one a Brooklyn trial court follows. Three examples from unpaid-pay cases:

• Whether an unsigned change to a commission plan binds you. In the Second Department, an employee who keeps working accepts the new terms even if the employer never got a signature (Gross).
• Whether the 2021 amendment to Labor Law § 193 applies to older conduct. The First Department says no (Fisher). The Second Department has treated withholding earned pay as a § 193 violation without needing the amendment (Okeke).
• Whether § 198(1-a) gives a private right of action for late payment. The First Department says yes (Vega); the Second Department disagrees. The Court of Appeals has not resolved it.

Where both departments are available, which one you file in can be worth money. Decide before anything is filed.

City law applies in Brooklyn

Brooklyn is New York City, so the New York City Human Rights Law covers work here in addition to the State and federal laws. It must be construed more broadly than either (Admin. Code § 8-130), and it has its own deadlines: one year to file with the City Commission on Human Rights (three years for gender-based harassment) and three years in court (Admin. Code §§ 8-109(e), 8-502(d)), and an employment-related agreement cannot shorten them (§§ 8-109(e-1), 8-502(d-1)). Filing with the Commission or the State Division can bar a later lawsuit on the same claim, so decide where to file before you file. See employment claim deadlines.

On the core City law standards, Brooklyn and Manhattan agree: the Second Department applies the same “treated less well” test the First Department adopted, so harassment does not have to be severe or pervasive (Golston-Green). For who the City law covers, the protections only New York City has, retaliation and what you can recover, see your rights under the NYC Human Rights Law.

My Brooklyn work

For workers.

• Okeke v. Interfaith Medical Center, 224 A.D.3d 763 (2d Dep’t 2024): hospital workers’ class claims for pay withheld from their shifts and for meal-break deductions under Labor Law § 193, wage-statement claims under § 195, and an age claim under the City law survived the hospital’s motion to dismiss, and the Second Department affirmed. I argued for the workers on appeal.
• Fair Labor Standards Act wage cases in the Eastern District’s Brooklyn courthouse, each resolved by settlement: Sanchez Vazquez v. Sedge Island Corp. (2016), Velazco-Rojas v. D&M Smoked Fish, Inc. (2017, settlement approved by the court) and Muia v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2025).

For tenants and homeowners.

• Dorce v. City of New York, a class action for New York City homeowners over the City’s Third Party Transfer program, under which the City took title to homes and small buildings over unpaid municipal charges and the owners lost all of their equity, not just the amount they owed. In September 2026 the parties moved for preliminary approval of a proposed $60 million settlement for the Round 10 class, which covers 64 properties. The settlement is subject to court approval. Claims for more than 500 other properties remain in litigation.
• 125 Court Street LLC v. Nicholson (Civil Court, Kings County): after the Appellate Term vacated the settlement that had led to the tenant’s eviction from her rent-stabilized Brooklyn apartment and dismissed the landlord’s case, and the Second Department affirmed, I represented her in Housing Court, which restored her to possession in March 2024 (125 Ct. St., LLC v Nicholson, 67 Misc 3d 28 [App Term, 2d Dept 2019], affd 214 AD3d 723 [2d Dept 2023]). She is back in the apartment. In her rent overcharge case, the court denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there are questions of fact about whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment (Nicholson v. 125 Court Street LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 32945[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]). That case is ongoing.
• 374-76 Prospect Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of New York, 231 A.D.3d 911 (2d Dep’t 2024): a Brooklyn tenants’ association’s claims against the City for breach of contract, promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty, arising from the City’s Tenant Interim Lease program, survived the City’s motion to dismiss, and the Second Department affirmed. I argued the appeal for the association.
• Charles v. City of New York (E.D.N.Y. 2026): claims by residents with disabilities that the City’s Open Streets program blocks their access, including on streets in North Brooklyn and Fort Greene, survived the City’s motion to dismiss. The case is ongoing.
• Fanfair v. Knipel, a class petition alleging that the Kings County foreclosure part was not deciding unrepresented homeowners’ requests for counsel. It settled in March 2024, with the court system agreeing to change how the law is applied.

I worked on these matters with colleagues and co-counsel. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Where to start

• If you have been offered a severance agreement, or use the severance evaluator.
• If you are owed commissions or wages.
• If you have been treated unfairly because of who you are, or retaliated against for complaining.
• If you are working with a medical condition.
• For an estimate of what your claims may be worth, the case evaluator.