In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AUGUST TERM 2023 No. 23-350

ROBERT GUTHRIE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RAINBOW FENCING INC., LAWSON BURGE, Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

ARGUED: JANUARY 8, 2024 DECIDED: AUGUST 30, 2024

Before: MENASHI, NATHAN, and KAHN, Circuit Judges.

Robert Guthrie filed this action against his former employer, Rainbow Fencing Inc., seeking unpaid wages as well as statutory damages for the failure to provide the wage notices and wage statements that New York law requires. The district court entered a default judgment with respect to the unpaid wages but determined that Guthrie lacked standing to bring a claim for statutory damages because he had not alleged an injury-in-fact. We agree with the district court that a plaintiff lacks standing to pursue statutory damages for a technical violation—such as a failure to provide statutorily required notices—unless the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the violation led to an injury-in-fact. Because Guthrie did not provide such a plausible allegation, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

ABDUL K. HASSAN, Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC, Queens Village, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants-Appellees.

MENASHI, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Guthrie sued his former employer, Rainbow Fencing Inc. (“RFI”), for unpaid wages as well as for statutory damages arising from its failure to provide the wage notices and wage statements that New York law requires. See N.Y. Lab. L. § 195. RFI defaulted, and the district court entered a default judgment for Guthrie except with respect to his claim for statutory damages. The district court concluded that Guthrie lacked standing to pursue that claim because he failed to allege that the failure to provide the notices and statements caused him to sustain an injury-in-fact sufficient to meet the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.

2 On appeal, Guthrie argues that (1) he did not need to meet the requirements of Article III standing to pursue his claim for statutory damages because the district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, and (2) he met the injury-in-fact requirement regardless. We agree with the district court that Guthrie cannot rely on supplemental jurisdiction in the absence of Article III standing. We further agree that a plaintiff must adequately allege a concrete injury-in-fact resulting from the failure to provide the wage notices and wage statements to maintain a claim for statutory damages under New York Labor Law § 195. Because Guthrie did not do so, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

I

RFI, a business based in Brooklyn with about twenty-two employees, provides fencing services and repairs. RFI employed Guthrie as a welder from 2014 to 2021. During that time, Guthrie earned between $12.50 and $17.50 per hour and worked between 44.5 and 54.5 hours per week. Guthrie alleged that “[a]t all times relevant herein, [he] was not paid any wages for his overtime hours … except that about 1-2 times each month, [he] was paid for about 8 overtime hours … at his straight regular hourly rate instead of at 1.5 times his regular hourly rate.” App’x 8. Guthrie sued RFI in the Eastern District of New York to recover the unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (requiring an emp