Employment Lawyer Staten Island | Wage Claim Defense Case

The client was the chief executive officer of a large scale animal feed manufacturing company operating in New York.

The company employed a mix of production staff and on site security personnel and maintained structured work schedules and internal policies reflecting industry standards.

The employer had no prior history of wage disputes or regulatory violations, making the allegations particularly concerning from a reputational and compliance standpoint.

The claimant was a security guard who had recently resigned and subsequently filed a civil action alleging unpaid wages.

He asserted that changes to work schedules resulted in additional duties, unpaid overtime, unpaid holiday premiums, and other statutory wage violations.

The complaint sought retroactive compensation across the entire employment period and placed the employer at risk of significant financial liability.

A key factual issue involved a modification of work hours.

The defense established that the schedule change was implemented at the request of security staff to allow longer consecutive rest periods and extended leave opportunities.

The revised schedule did not increase workload intensity and was designed to enhance employee welfare rather than extract additional labor.

Importantly, no evidence supported the claim that new tasks or expanded responsibilities were imposed without compensation.

The employment lawyer Staten Island defense team demonstrated that the claimant’s arguments relied on a generalized assumption that all extended hours or holiday shifts automatically generated additional wage entitlements.

Through documentary evidence and testimony, the defense showed that the claimant’s role fell within a category of security related work where statutory overtime and holiday premiums were not applicable under the approved operational framework.

Compensation was lawfully structured and consistently paid.

The court closely examined whether the claimant could prove that additional compensable work had actually been performed.

The defense highlighted that the claimant relied primarily on personal assertions rather than objective records, time logs, or corroborating testimony.

As a result, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the employee performed work beyond the scope of compensated duties.

The defense further demonstrated that the employer had obtained appropriate administrative approvals recognizing the nature of security and driving related duties.

This recognition confirmed that certain wage provisions did not apply to the claimant’s position.

Accordingly, no unpaid wages, overtime, or holiday compensation obligations had arisen, and the employer’s payroll practices were lawful and transparent.