A New York court has ruled in favor of hotel service workers in a case concerning job protections after a change in cleaning contractors. The decision affects workers who claim they were unlawfully terminated without the job security guaranteed by the Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act. This ruling is significant as it reinforces protections for vulnerable workers in the hospitality industry.
The case, Cruz v. NY 37th ES LLC, was decided on May 26, 2026, by Justice Arlene P. Bluth in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiffs, led by Victor Cruz, Tammy Garcia, and Ambar Martinez, filed a class action lawsuit against several defendants, including NY 37th ES LLC and Superior Cleaning Services (NY) LLC. They argued that the defendants violated the Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act by failing to offer them continued employment after a change in the cleaning contractor.
The Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act, part of the New York City Administrative Code, provides job security for hotel workers during transitions between employers. It requires that workers be offered temporary employment for at least 90 days at their previous wage rate or higher when a hotel changes its cleaning contractor. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that they were simply terminated instead of being offered these protections.
The dispute arose when the Embassy Suites in Times Square changed its cleaning contractor from Superior Cleaning Services to New York Super Clean Service Inc. The plaintiffs claimed that they were not informed of their rights under the Act and were wrongfully terminated without being offered continued employment.
The court's ruling addressed multiple motions filed by the defendants, including requests to dismiss the case. Justice Bluth denied these motions, allowing the case to proceed. The court stated, "Defendants' motions to dismiss... are denied," affirming the plaintiffs' right to pursue their claims. The ruling also granted a motion by the City of New York to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act.
The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim under the Act, which aims to protect hotel workers during transitions between employers. The ruling clarified that the Act applies not only to changes in hotel ownership but also to changes in contractors providing services to the hotel.
Justice Bluth emphasized that the Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act provides minimum protections for all workers, stating, "The Act protects all employees and permits those subject to a CBA to obtain more benefits." This ruling is crucial as it affirms the rights of non-union workers, ensuring they receive the same protections as those covered by collective bargaining agreements.
The court also rejected the defendants' arguments that the Act was preempted by federal law, specifically the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The defendants claimed that the Act conflicted with federal labor laws that govern collective bargaining agreements. However, the court found that the Act does not interfere with the collective bargaining process and serves as a minimum standard for worker protections.
Justice Bluth noted that the law does not prevent employers from laying off employees after the 90-day retention period, as long as such layoffs are conducted fairly and for just cause. This provision is essential for balancing the rights of workers with the operational needs of employers.
The ruling has significant implications for hotel workers in New York City, particularly those in precarious employment situations. It reinforces the importance of job security for workers who may be vulnerable to sudden employment changes due to contractor transitions. The decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving worker protections under the Displaced Hotel Service Workers Act.
Moving forward, the case will proceed to the discovery phase, where both parties will gather evidence and prepare for trial. The court has scheduled a conference for August 10, 2026, to discuss the progress of the case and any outstanding issues. If the parties cannot agree on a discovery stipulation, they will be required to submit individual letters outlining their positions.
The ruling could potentially be appealed by the defendants, but they will first need to respond to the complaint as ordered by the court. The outcome of this case may influence similar disputes involving worker protections in the hospitality industry and beyond.
In summary, the New York Supreme Court's ruling in Cruz v. NY 37th ES LLC is a pivotal moment for hotel service workers, affirming their rights to job security and fair treatment during transitions between employers. The decision highlights the ongoing struggle for worker protections in an evolving labor landscape.