You are here: / / COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Labor Law 740, the whistleblower statute:

Labor Law § 740 creates a cause of action in favor of an employee who has suffered a “retaliatory personnel action” as a consequence of, inter alia, “disclos[ing], or threaten[ing] to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety,” or as a consequence of “object[ing] to, or refus[ing] to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation” … . …

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff was offered a promotion … . The complaint also alleged that the terms of the promotion would have placed the plaintiff under the supervision of the defendant Tonya Parker, who was not among the class of persons authorized by law or regulation to supervise a registered nurse in clinical activities. The complaint also alleged that the plaintiff pointed out that Parker was not authorized to supervise her, but the terms of the promotion were not changed. The complaint further alleged that after the plaintiff declined to accept the promotion, she was discharged from her position as Head of Nursing, and another nurse was given the position that plaintiff had turned down, under Parker's supervision. Fough v August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03469, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE)/LABOR LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE)/WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER LABOR LAW 740)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY FABRICATED EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE DENIED PLAINTIFF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REVERSED; A JUDGE’S POWER TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT, SUA SPONTE, IS LIMITED AND SHOULD BE USED SPARINGLY (SECOND DEPT).
INDICATING INCONSISTENT DECISIONS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT COULD NOT DISMISS A CASE BASED ON THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE COURT’S ORDER UNLESS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 ARE COMPLIED WITH (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLIED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed
PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO BE HEARD ON THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT AFTER IT WAS DEEMED A DEFENSE VERDICT VIOLATED THE BINDING SUMMARY TRIAL STIPULATION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER STUDENT AND SUED THE SCHOOL UNDER A NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION THEORY; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL... NO-FAULT CARRIER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LETTERS TO DEFENDANT SCHEDULING AN EXAMINATION...