You are here: / / Bringing a Cause of Action Under the Whistleblower Statute Alleging Retaliation...
, ,

Bringing a Cause of Action Under the Whistleblower Statute Alleging Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct Does Not Bar Claims Arising from the Misconduct Itself (Here Claims of Sexual Harassment)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined that a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law 740, the whistleblower statute, did not bar the underlying sexual harassment and negligence claims reported by the whistleblowers.  Labor Law 740 prohibits retaliation for blowing the whistle, which is distinct from claims arising from the misconduct which was reported:

In dispute is the scope of Labor Law § 740 (7), which provides:

“Existing rights. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other law or regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of an action in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, law, rule or regulation or under the common law.”

This provision makes clear that the terminated employee is neither compelled to bring an action under the statute nor limited to the relief it affords but may pursue any other available remedy. However, if the employee chooses to institute an action pursuant to the statute, any alternative means of redress is thereby waived.

Central to the assessment of the scope of this waiver is the purpose of the statute, both with respect to the abuse it is intended to remedy and the relief it provides. It prohibits “retaliatory personnel action” against an employee who undertakes to disclose conduct in violation of any law or regulation, who furnishes information to an investigatory body in regard to such activity or who refuses to participate in such activity (Labor Law § 740 [2]). Notably, statutory relief is confined to wrongful termination; no redress is provided to the victims of the underlying misconduct. The statute specifically addresses the termination of an employee who witnesses and reports misconduct. It is not so broad as to encompass the circumstances at bar, in which plaintiffs were not only terminated for revealing abuse by senior managers but were also targeted and victimized by that abuse. Lee v Woori Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 06299, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

You might also like
Court’s Erroneous Jury Instruction Re: State’s Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Alleged Crime Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Objection Is Required to Preserve the Issue for Appeal
FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTEMPT AND GAG ORDERS ISSUED IN THIS TRIAL WHERE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED BY A DEMAND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; MOTIONS TO VACATE THE ORDERS SHOULD BE MADE; ANY DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS COULD THEN BE APPEALED (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF WIFE ASSUMED FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD CHORES, COOKING, TRANSPORTIING THE CHILDREN, AND CARED FOR THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED A $40,000 AWARD FOR LOSS OF SERVICES; THE JURY HAD AWARDED $0 DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY FELL FROM A WET, SLIPPERY WOODEN LADDER; HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION; NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).
OMISSIONS FROM COMPLAINT SUPPLIED BY AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
THE “SHEPPARD-MOBLEY” BAR TO A MOTHER’S RECOVERY FOR EMOTIONAL HARM IF HER BABY IS BORN ALIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO A LACK-OF-INFORMED CONSENT, AS OPPOSED TO A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE MOTHER ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO TWO UNSUCCESSFUL VACUUM EXTRACTION ATTEMPTS WHICH PRECEDED THE C-SECTION; HER BABY DIED EIGHT DAYS AFTER BIRTH (FIRST DEPT). ​
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs,... Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute...