Connection lost
Server error
Chen v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Garment workers sued a sportswear manufacturer, claiming they were third-party beneficiaries of a compliance agreement between the manufacturer and the Department of Labor. The court denied the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, finding the agreement was intended to directly benefit the workers by ensuring payment of their wages.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that employees can be intended third-party beneficiaries of compliance agreements between a manufacturer and a government agency. It allows them to sue for breach even if the agreement does not explicitly grant them a private right of action.
Chen v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, garment workers at factories that produced sportswear for Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. (“Street Beat”), alleged they were not paid minimum wage or overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Street Beat, the manufacturer defendant, had previously entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and an Augmented Compliance Program Agreement (ACPA) with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The ACPA’s stated purpose was to ensure that Street Beat’s contractors complied with the FLSA. The agreement obligated Street Beat to monitor its contractors’ wage practices and, in the event of a violation, to pay back wages due to the contractors’ employees. The plaintiffs were not employed by the specific factories named in the MOA but worked for other contractors hired by Street Beat during the ACPA’s term. Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging, inter alia, that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the ACPA and could sue Street Beat for its breach. They also brought negligence claims for negligent hiring and supervision. Street Beat moved to dismiss these claims, arguing the plaintiffs were not intended beneficiaries of the ACPA and that the negligence claims were barred by the New York Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can employees of a contractor be considered intended third-party beneficiaries of a compliance agreement between a manufacturer and the Department of Labor, thereby granting them the right to sue the manufacturer for breach of that agreement?
Yes, the employees are intended third-party beneficiaries of the ACPA and may Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can employees of a contractor be considered intended third-party beneficiaries of a compliance agreement between a manufacturer and the Department of Labor, thereby granting them the right to sue the manufacturer for breach of that agreement?
Conclusion
This decision provides a contractual basis for employees to hold manufacturers accountable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Rule
Under New York law, a third party may enforce a contract by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eius
Legal Analysis
The court applied New York's three-part test for intended third-party beneficiaries. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim venia
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law does not bar negligence claims for