You are here: / Employment Law

DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE) ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined plaintiff-employer was entitled to summary judgment on both liability and damages in this “disloyal or faithless performance of employment duties” case. Defendant-employee stole $50,000 from his employer. The employer sought recovery of the compensation paid to the employee over the six-year period of the theft and relief from the obligation to provide health insurance. Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability but ruled the employee's otherwise unblemished career raised a question of fact about damages. The Third Department held Supreme Court's damages ruling was error:

New York law with respect to the disloyal or faithless performance of employment duties has developed for well over a century. Firmly rooted in this state's jurisprudence is the principle that “an employee is to be loyal to his [or her] employer and is 'prohibited from acting in any manner inconsistent with his [or her] agency or trust and is at all times bound to exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in the performance of his [or her] duties'” … . Under what is commonly referred to as the faithless servant doctrine, “[o]ne who owes a duty of fidelity to a principal and who is faithless in the performance of his [or her] services is generally disentitled to recover his [or her] compensation, whether commissions or salary” … . Thus, where an employee “engage[s] in repeated acts of disloyalty, complete and permanent forfeiture of compensation, deferred or otherwise, is warranted” … . * * *

The Court of Appeals has made clear that forfeiture of compensation is required even when some or all of “the services were beneficial to the principal or [when] the principal suffered no provable damage as a result of the breach of fidelity by the agent” … . City of Binghamton v Whalen, 2016 NY Slip Op 04289, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)/DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)/FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE (DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)

,

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)

,

MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined the village mayor did not have the authority to ignore the ruling of a hearing officer who found petitioner, a former firefighter, was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a benefits based upon an on-the-job injury. When the mayor appointed the hearing officer, there was no indication the hearing officer's finding was merely advisory:

Based on the record, we conclude that Supreme Court's initial finding that the Village was not bound by the Hearing Officer's determination was in error. First, and contrary to respondents' argument, without any statutory or negotiated prohibition or direction, the Village was authorized to delegate its decision-making authority to the Hearing Officer … .  Second, that the Mayor did, in fact, appoint the Hearing Officer to make a final determination and not a recommendation is apparent from the record before us. Neither the 2010 nor the 2012 appointment was in any way qualified so as to limit the respective Hearing Officers to an advisory role.  Matter of McKay v Village of Endicott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)

BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BE LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY GUARD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he was punched and severely injured by a man dressed like other security guards at a bar. The bar (Hiro) and the security company (NEC) could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. A new trial was ordered:

The trial court erred in granting Hiro's motion for a directed verdict, since there is evidence to support a reasonable jury's finding that plaintiff's assailant was a Hiro employee or an NEC employee who was supervised by Hiro, for whose acts Hiro could have been found liable upon the theory of respondeat superior … . An attack on plaintiff by a security guard could be found to be within the scope of the guard's employment … . Plaintiff's inability to identify his assailant, who left after the incident, does not preclude him from recovery … . Jones v Hiro Cocktail Lounge, 2016 NY Slip Op 04110, 1st Dept 5-26-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/ASSAULT (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/SECURITY GUARDS  (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

,

WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have compelled arbitration of the dismissal of a probationary employee (Woods). The court deemed the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ambiguous about whether the dismissal of a probationary employee constituted “discipline” within the meaning of the CBA. Therefore it should have been left to the arbitrator to decide whether the CBA governs the dismissal:

Contrary to respondents' interpretation, we do not find that the cited provision of the CBA unambiguously excludes Woods from its coverage. Indeed, it can be read to wholly supplant the referenced provisions of the Civil Service Law and to require a demonstration of “just cause” to discipline any employee in the bargaining unit. While the dissent has concluded that Woods was not disciplined, it is for an arbitrator to interpret and apply the CBA, and we do not have authority to consider the merits of the argument … . Since the CBA provision is ambiguous, an arbitrator must decide whether it governs Woods' dismissal from service, and Supreme Court should have granted the petition to compel arbitration … . Matter of Woods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

ARBITRATION (WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/UNIONS (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED (NOT A VIOLATION OF THE AT WILL CONTRACT) OR WHETHER DEFENDANT EMPLOYER VIOLATED THE NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff employee should not have been granted summary judgment against defendant employer in this action alleging breach of an employment contract.  Although the contract was deemed to have created an at will employment arrangement, Supreme Court held that the “no oral modification” clause was violated when defendant employer modified plaintiff's duties without a written agreement signed by the plaintiff. The First Department found that there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was terminated (not prohibited by the contract), or whether the contract was modified without a written agreement (prohibited by the contract):

“[A]bsent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party” ,,, . The presumption can be rebutted by evidence of a limitation on the employer's right to discharge the employee at will … .

The inclusion of the no oral modification clause in the employment agreement does not, in and of itself, suffice to rebut the at-will presumption. While the clause precluded the modification of “any provision” of the agreement without a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement was sought, there is no express provision in the agreement that precluded defendant from terminating plaintiff without cause. However, as Supreme Court found, the no oral modification clause is an enforceable contract term even if the employment was at will  … . * * *

Nevertheless, while the court correctly found that the no oral modification clause was enforceable and barred defendant from unilaterally altering the terms of plaintiff's employment agreement without a writing, issues of fact exist that preclude the granting of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. These include whether or not defendant terminated plaintiff's employment or merely modified it when it removed plaintiff as president … .  Gootee v Global Credit Servs., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03984, 1st Dept 5-19-16

CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED [NOT A VIOLATION OF THE AT WILL CONTRACT] OR WHETHER DEFENDANT EMPLOYER VIOLATED THE NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED [NOT A VIOLATION OF THE AT WILL CONTRACT] OR WHETHER DEFENDANT EMPLOYER VIOLATED THE NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE)/AT WILL EMPLOYMENT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED [NOT A VIOLATION OF THE AT WILL CONTRACT] OR WHETHER DEFENDANT EMPLOYER VIOLATED THE NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE)

NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over a dissenting opinion, determined the New York State Racing and Wagering Board had the discretion to reduce the per diem wages of seasonal employees by 25%. The majority held that a Side Letter Agreement, which incorporated 50 articles of the collective bargaining agreement, set limits on the discretionary authority of the racing board, but did not prohibit the discretionary wage reduction at issue here. The dissent argued the 50 incorporated articles did not address the wage reduction and therefore should not be deemed to have given the racing board the discretion to unilaterally reduce the wages of seasonal employees:

The Side Letter Agreement was comprehensive in addressing all conditions of employment for seasonal employees for 1996 to 1999. It included specific pay increases for specific years, but not for the fiscal year in which the 25% reduction took effect. The Side Letter Agreement did not rule out pay reductions and did not impose any conditions precedent to pay reductions … . Thus, PERB's [Public Employment Relations Board's] conclusion that it was “reasonably clear” that both sides intended the Side Letter Agreement “to act as a negotiated limitation upon the State Budget Director's discretion” as to compensation for seasonal employees was not arbitrary and capricious. Contrary to the dissent's characterization, the decision is supported not just by the quantity of items contained in the Side Letter Agreement, but by specific items expressly limiting the discretion otherwise delegated to the Racing Board chair and Budget Director by statute. PERB's decision should be accorded deference as a decision within its area of expertise. Read as a whole, the language of the Side Letter Agreement “implicitly demonstrate[s] that the parties had reached accord” with respect to any limitations on the discretionary authority of the Budget Director to change the per diem compensation of seasonal employees. Matter of Kent v Lefkowitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 03650, CtApp 5-10-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/RACING AND WAGERING BOARD (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)

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)

,

CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER ALLEGING EMPLOYEES WERE ROUTINELY UNDERPAID ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.

The First Department determined plaintiffs, former and current non-managerial employees of defendant Jenny Craig (weight-loss centers), established commonality (CPLR 901(a)(2)) such that their class action suit could proceed. 751 class members alleged they were regularly underpaid because 30 minutes of pay was routinely deducted for breaks which the employees did not take:

Where, as here, “the same types of subterfuge [were] allegedly employed to pay lower wages,” commonality of the claims will be found to predominate, even though the putative class members have “different levels of damages” … . Class action is an appropriate method of adjudicating wage claims arising from an employer's alleged practice of underpaying employees, given that “the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court … . Weinstein v Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02932, 1st Dept 4-19-16


,

ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit against the employer, Ross, by three former employees should have been dismissed. The allegations made by the three employees were not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment:

While Ross' alleged conduct was certainly offensive and grossly unprofessional, those aspects of it that were sexually harassing were not severe or pervasive enough to render any plaintiff's work environment objectively hostile and abusive as these terms are construed under the Human Rights Law.

In order to establish the existence of a sexually hostile work environment, an individual plaintiff must show that his or her workplace was “'permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his or her] employment and create an abusive working environment'” … . All of the circumstances must be considered, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with [the plaintiff's] work performance” … . Moreover, the workplace must be both subjectively and objectively hostile. That is, a plaintiff must not only perceive that the conditions of his or her employment were altered because of discriminatory conduct, but the conduct also must have created an environment that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive … . Pawson v Ross, 2016 NY Slip Op 02502, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/SEXUAL HARASSMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)

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