July 24, 2014

Payment Required: New York Court Finds No Violation Of New York Labor Law Section 193 Where Unpaid Interns Did Not Receive Wages From Employer

In Wang, et al. v. The Hearst Corporation, 12 CV 793 (HB) (January 9, 2013), Judge Harold Baer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Hearst Corporation’s (“Hearst”) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, finding that requiring unpaid interns to purchase college credit does not constitute an improper wage deduction under Section 193 of the New York Labor Law (“Section 193”). In reaching this decision, the Court unequivocally held that “there can be no ‘deduction’ within the meaning of [Section 193] when . . . plaintiff did not receive any payment – or anything arguably close – that could constitute ‘wages’ under Section 193.”

The Plaintiff in Wang was employed as an unpaid intern at Hearst during the summer of 2010. As an unpaid intern, Plaintiff was responsible for communicating with modeling agencies, selecting models, and attending casting meetings. As a condition of employment, Hearst required Plaintiff to purchase college credit from an accredited university. As a result of this arrangement, Plaintiff alleged that Hearst “took unlawful deductions by requiring [Plaintiff] to purchase academic credit . . . as a condition of employment” and that these “deductions” constituted “payments by separate transaction” in violation of Section 193.

Under Section 193, employers are prohibited from making deductions from employee wages unless such deductions are either authorized by law (e.g. tax withholdings or Medicare contributions) or are expressly enumerated in Section 193. Section 193(3)(a) further provides that “[n]o employer shall make any charge against wages, or require an employee to make any payment by separate transaction unless such charge or payment is permitted as a deduction from wages under the provisions of subdivision one of this section . . . .”

With this statutory framework in mind, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim, finding that “the insurmountable hurdle faced by Plaintiff is that Plaintiff did not receive any payment – or anything arguably close – that could constitute ‘wages’ under Section 193.” In fact, Plaintiff admitted that she was “paid no wages at all for the work for [Hearst].” Since Plaintiff was not paid any wages, the Court reasoned that Hearst cannot be found to have violated Section 193 because “Section 193(3)(a) does not prohibit ‘any payment by separate transaction’ in itself but such a payment ‘as a deduction from wages.’” Stated another way, the Court held that “there can be no ‘deduction’ within the meaning of the statute where there is nothing from which to take away or subtract.”

In light of the Court’s decision, and provided that the employer satisfies the New York Department of Labor’s test for determining when a person is actually an unpaid intern and not an employee, employers who hire unpaid interns and require those interns to purchase college credit as a condition of employment can be more confident that the practice does not run afoul of Section 193 and its prohibition against deductions from an employee’s wages.

Copyright © 2014, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author


Sean Kirby is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group and a member of the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's New York Office.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.