United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2022

Argued: May 18, 2022 Decided: January 5, 2024

No. 22-491-cv

RESTAURANT LAW CENTER, NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK, VILDA VERA MAYUGA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND WORKER PROTECTION,

Defendants-Appellees. *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 21-cv-4801, Denise Cote, Judge.

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly. Before: PARKER AND NATHAN, Circuit Judges. *

Plaintiffs, a public policy organization and food service trade association, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and the Commissioner of the City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, alleging that New York City’s law prohibiting the wrongful discharge of fast-food restaurant employees is preempted by federal law and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.) granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. We conclude that the City’s Wrongful Discharge Law does not violate federal law nor the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. ________

WILLIAM R. PETERSON (Leni D. Battaglia, James D. Nelson, on the brief), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs- Appellants.

ANGELO I. AMADOR, Restaurant Law Center, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

ELINA DRUKER (Richard Dearing, Claude S. Platton, on the brief), for Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Solicitor General (Ester Murdukhayeva, Deputy Solicitor General & Stephen J. Yanni, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief) for Letitia

*Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, originally a member of the panel, passed away on August 10, 2023. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457, 458–59 (2d Cir. 1998).

2 James, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for Amici Curiae States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, and the District of Columbia