You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741.
,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly found to have been entitled to whistleblower protection under Labor Law 741. Plaintiff complained about an infusion procedure during liver transplant surgery which plaintiff believed threatened the safety and health of the patient. Thereafter plaintiff was demoted and given no further work:

Labor Law § 741 prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee because the employee discloses, threatens to disclose, objects to, or refuses to participate in “any activity, policy or practice of the employer or agent that the employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care” (Labor Law § 741[2][a], [b]). ” Improper quality of patient care' means, with respect to patient care, any practice, procedure, action or failure to act of an employer which violates any law, rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law, where such violation relates to matter which may present a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety or a significant threat to the health of a specific patient” (Labor Law § 741[1][d]). It is a defense that “the personnel action was predicated upon grounds other than the employee's exercise of any rights protected by this section” (Labor Law § 741[5]). Galbraith v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04176, 2nd Dept 6-1-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741)/WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741)

You might also like
Even Though the Appeal Had Been Rendered Moot, It Was Appropriate for the Appellate Court to Vacate the Underlying Order
THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYER AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE RE: THE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S TAX PREPARATION BUSINESS TO PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SOLD HER CLIENT LIST TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, PETITION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER’S CAUSES OF ACTION (SEEKING THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION) AGAINST THE BUYERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY USING A DIFFERENT BROKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE QUANTUM MERUIT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT MADE OUT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS BEING DELIVERED; DEFENDANT SHOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUED TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After Hours on School Grounds; Failure to Lock Gate Not Proximate Cause of Injury

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

ABSENCE OF SAFETY RAIL ON SCAFFOLDING ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT... PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD...