Lawyer banned by fitness club had no standing to complain about retaliation, says appeals court
A New York lawyer who says he was banned from his fitness club after filing a wage-and-hour suit on behalf of a client had no standing to complain of the ouster under state labor law, an appeals court has ruled.
Douglas Wigdor had contended that the SoulCycle ban violated anti-retaliation provisions of New York and California labor law. However, the Appellate Division, First Department ruled Thursday that the law only applies to employees. Hence, Wigdor could not sue for retaliation on his own behalf after the club revoked his membership, reports the New York Law Journal (sub. req.).
A trial court had allowed a separate claim to proceed alleging that the ban was a breach of the duty of fair dealing implied under Wigdor’s membership contract with SoulCycle. However, the appeals court nixed it too, saying that Wigdor’s complaint failed to establish a prima facie case.
The appellate decision apparently may not be the end of the dispute, however:
“The ruling is too narrow and can lead to retaliation against lawyers for doing their job in representing clients,” partner Valdi Licul of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, who represented Wigdor, told the New York Law Journal.
“We hope the Court of Appeals will see the matter differently,” Licul said.
SoulCycle’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment by the legal publication.
The underlying federal wage-and-hour lawsuit that Wigdor brought on behalf of instructor Nick Oram over allegedly unpaid work time settled in 2013 on undisclosed terms. Although the court dismissed the wage claims, retaliation claims had been allowed to proceed.
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Lawyer sues fitness club, alleges he was banned for prior lawsuit”
