You are here: / Labor Law
,

Under the Circumstances Plaintiff Could Not Strictly Comply with the Whistleblower Statute by Complaining to the Very People Involved in the Wrongful Conduct—Plaintiff Entitled to Back Pay and Prejudgment Interest for Retaliatory Demotion

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that plaintiff had complied with the whistleblower statute and was entitled to prejudgment interest on his award for retaliatory demotion. The statute, Civil Service Law  75-b, requires that any allegedly wrongful act first be reported to the “appointing authority.” However, in this case, the “appointing authority” were the very people plaintiff alleged committed the wrongful act. In this circumstance plaintiff’s complaints to his immediate superiors and then to the inspector general were deemed to comply with the statute. The Court of Appeals also reasoned that, because the purpose of the whistleblower statute is to make whistleblowers whole, the award of prejudgment interest under the statute is proper:

Under these particular circumstances, strict compliance with the reporting requirements of Civil Service Law § 75-b would not serve the purpose of the statute. Rather, courts should use their discretion in determining whether the overall actions of the plaintiff constitute a good faith effort to report the misconduct. In cases such as this — where the appointing authority is the one engaging in the alleged misconduct — an employee’s good faith effort to report the misconduct should be evaluated with attention to the employee’s practical inability to report to the appointing authority. The “good faith” provision in the statute affords courts the discretion to determine whether a plaintiff has met its requirements and appears to adequately account for situations like the one presented here. * * *

Here, an overall view of the comprehensive package of remedies listed in Labor Law § 740 (5), including undefined “compensation” and “remuneration,” demonstrates that the Legislature sought to make a whistleblowing plaintiff whole, which would include an award of prejudgment interest.  … [B]ecause the remedies listed in the statute appear to seek to make a whistleblowing plaintiff whole, awarding prejudgment interest would serve that purpose. By demoting plaintiff rather than awarding him a planned promotion and significant raise, defendants deprived plaintiff of access to what would have been a higher salary for a period of over 10 years. Awarding back pay with interest would serve to make plaintiff whole; thus, he is entitled to such a recovery. Tipaldo v Lynn, 2015 NY Slip Op 07698, CtApp 10-22-15

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

Failure to Pay Wages In Violation of Labor Law 191 (1)(a) is a Class A Misdemeanor—Therefore Defendant Was Properly Sentenced to a Period of Incarceration Followed by a Period of Probation—The Statute Authorizes Incarceration or a Fine—Because the Defendant Was Incarcerated, the Fine Must Be Vacated

The Second Department determined defendant was properly incarcerated for 60 days and sentenced to a period of probation for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 191(1)(a), which in a Class A misdemeanor.  However, the statute allows for incarceration or a fine.  Because defendant had served 60 days, the imposition of the $5000 fine was vacated:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court was permitted to sentence him to a period of probation. A conviction of failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law § 191(1)(a), which is defined as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment, is a class A misdemeanor (Labor Law § 198-a[1]; see Penal Law § 55.10[2][b]) and, therefore, a crime (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Thus, a court may sentence a defendant to a period of probation for the crime of failure to pay wages (see Penal Law § 65.00[1][a]), and the imposition of a period of probation in addition to a 60-day term of incarceration was authorized here (see Penal Law § 60.01[2][d]…).

However, the County Court improperly imposed a $5,000 fine on the defendant. By its terms, Labor Law § 198-a(1) provides for punishment by a fine or imprisonment, but not both a fine and imprisonment, for a first conviction. As the defendant has already served his 60-day term of incarceration, the provision of the sentence imposing a $5,000 fine on the defendant must be vacated. People v DiSalvo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06164, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, , ,

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Gave Rise to a Claim Under General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a

The First Department, recalling and vacating its decision and order dated March 3, 2015, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-firefighter’s action based upon General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a was properly denied. The action alleged the city failed to provide firefighters with personal ropes and, as a result, firefighters were forced to jump from windows without ropes (resulting in injury and death). Labor Law 27-a requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards. A question of fact was raised whether the failure to issue personal ropes resulted from the city’s discretionary decision-making, and therefore is not subject to government-function immunity:

The motion court properly declined to dismiss the portion of plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law (GML) § 205-a claims predicated on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1). The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is “a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E. 178th St. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05099, 1st Dept 6-16-15

 

,

“Whistleblower Statute” Cause of Action Should Have Survived the Motion to Dismiss—No Need to Cite Particular Statute, Rule or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer in the Complaint

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 740 cause of action should have survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.  “A cause of action based upon Labor Law § 740, commonly known as the ‘whistleblower statute,’ is available to an employee who ‘discloses, or threatens 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’…”. The court noted that, to survive dismissal, the particular law, rule or regulation which was purportedly violated need not be specified in the complaint:

Here, the amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s employment with the corporate defendants was terminated after he complained to the individual defendants and the human resources department about certain activities and practices which the corporate defendants engaged in or tolerated. It further alleged that such conduct violated various laws or rules or regulations, and threatened public safety. Notably, “for pleading purposes, the complaint need not specify the actual law, rule or regulation violated, although it must identify the particular activities, policies or practices in which the employer allegedly engaged, so that the complaint provides the employer with notice of the alleged complained-of conduct” … . Ulysse v AAR Aircraft Component Servs., 2015 NY Slip Op 04474, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

“Head Waiter” with Substantial Managerial Duties and “Wine Steward” Whose Duties Did Not Include Serving Customers Were Not Entitled to Share in the Servers’ and Bus Boys’ Tip Pool

The Third Department affirmed the NYS Industrial Board of Appeals’ determination that two senior restaurant employees were not entitled to share in the servers’ and bus boys’ tip pool based upon the nature of their duties—one, the “head waiter,” had substantial managerial duties, and the other, the “wine steward,” had computer-programming duties, assisted customers with the wine list, and had little to do with serving customers.  Labor Law 196-d, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals, looks at the actual duties of employees, as opposed to their titles.  Those who exercise substantial managerial responsibilities, and those who cannot be characterized as “food service workers,” cannot participate in the tip pool:

The governing statute, Labor Law § 196-d, provides that “[n]o employer or his [or her] agent . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. . . . Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting . . . the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.” Recently, the Court of Appeals clarified that eligibility to participate in a tip pool “‘shall be based upon duties and not titles'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d 460, 471 [2013], quoting 12 NYCRR 146-2.14 [e]), and the Court held that “employer-mandated tip splitting should be limited to employees who, like waiters and busboys, are ordinarily engaged in personal customer service, a rule that comports with the ‘expectation[s] of the reasonable customer'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 471-472, quoting Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70, 79 [2008]; see 12 NYCRR 146-2.16 [b]; 146-3.4 [a]). Consistent with longstanding DOL policy, the Court further observed that “employees who regularly provide direct service to patrons remain tip-pool eligible even if they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 472). The Court concluded, however, “that there comes a point at which the degree of managerial responsibility becomes so substantial that the individual can no longer fairly be characterized as an employee similar to general wait staff within the meaning of Labor Law § 196-d” (id. at 473). The Court determined that “the line should be drawn at meaningful or significant authority or control over subordinates” (id.). The Court explained that “[m]eaningful authority might include the ability to discipline subordinates, assist in performance evaluations or participate in the process of hiring or terminating employees, as well as having input in the creation of employee work schedules, thereby directly influencing the number and timing of hours worked by staff as well as their compensation” (id.). Matter of Marzovilla v New York State Indus. Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03219, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

, , , ,

Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Is a Proper Basis for a General Municipal Law 205-a Claim

The First Department determined the alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a(3)(a)(1)  was sufficient to support an action by firefighters against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a.  Firefighters were injured and killed jumping from a building without personal ropes. The failure to provide personal ropes is the basis of the suit.  Governmental immunity did not bar the suit:

The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is ” a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E 178th St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01732, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

,

Teacher at a Community College Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Teacher Was Offered Employment in the Next School Year But the Hours Were Drastically Reduced—Therefore the Teacher Did Not Receive “Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment” within the Meaning of Labor Law 590(10)

The Third Department determined claimant, who taught at a community college, did not receive “reasonable assurance of continued employment” during the next school year and therefore was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.  Claimant had been offered employment for less than a third of the hours he had worked in the past school year:

Labor Law § 590 (10) precludes professionals employed by educational institutions from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for periods between two successive academic years when the employer has provided them with a reasonable assurance of continued employment … . “A reasonable assurance . . . has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” … . Whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of employment is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and its findings in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, claimant worked 150 hours during the 2010-2011 academic year, but was only offered 45 hours during the 2011-2012 academic year, limited to the 2011 fall semester. The employer did not specify any hours for the 2012 spring semester either in its reappointment letter or notice advising claimant of his assignment, and claimant was offered significantly fewer hours during the 2011 fall semester than he had worked during the 2010 fall semester. Matter of Rosenbaum …, 2015 NY Slip OP 00926, 3rd Dept 2-5-15


,

Violation of Labor Law Can Serve as a Basis for a Damages Action by a Police Officer Against the City Re: Injuries Suffered on the Job

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that a violation of Labor Law 27-a can serve as the basis of a damages action by a police officer injured while on the job.  Plaintiff officer was injured when she fell off a truck while loading wooden barricades:

With [the] understanding of the legislative intent to give broad application to GML § 205-e, we turn to defendants' challenge to plaintiff's cause of action for damages. To succeed on their summary judgment motion, defendants must establish “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … . For the reasons we discuss, defendants have failed to meet their burden.

In order to assert a claim under GML § 205-e, a plaintiff “must [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the [police officer] was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” … . Defendants allege plaintiff cannot satisfy the first requirement because the Labor Law may not serve as a basis for her cause of action. We disagree.

As a predicate to her GML damages cause of action plaintiff relies specifically on Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), which provides that “[e]very employer shall: (1) furnish to each of its employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees.”

Defendants counter that because [Labor Law 27-a] lacks a private right of action plaintiff cannot base her GML § 205-e claim on section 27-a. However, that is exactly what GML § 205-e permits and what the Legislature intended. While it is true that [the Labor Law]  does not contain an express private right of action …, GML § 205-e does not require that the predicate for a police officer's action contain an existing right to sue. Gammons v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08869, CtApp 12-18-14

 

,

Claimant Excluded from Eligibility for Unemployment Insurance Benefits by Labor Law 565 (Re: Major Policymaking or Advisory Positions)

The Third Department upheld the Unemployment Insurance Board’s determination that claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits by virtue of a statutory exclusion (Labor Law 565) for persons holding a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position:

For purposes of determining a claimant’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) excludes from employment “services rendered for a governmental entity by . . . a person in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position.” Whether this exclusion applies presents a mixed question of law and fact, and the Board’s determination in this regard will be upheld if it has a rational basis … .

Here, claimant’s position had three primary functions: (1) to investigate patterns of discrimination involving violations of the Human Rights Law appropriate for filing an administrative complaint by DHR, (2) to oversee the prosecution of complaints brought on behalf of individuals, and (3) to evaluate DHR’s [Division of Human Rights’] issuance of exemptions for certain housing providers. In addition, claimant was a member of the stimulus oversight team responsible for ensuring that stimulus funds were distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner. In performing his duties, claimant reported directly to the Commissioner of Human Rights, had meetings with the Commissioner on a variety of matters and made recommendations on the implementation of agency policies. In addition, he represented the DHR in its dealings with other agencies while a member of the stimulus oversight team and devised a system for gathering accurate information concerning expenditures made in connection therewith. Although claimant did not independently establish agency policy, he was involved in the process and his advice was solicited by the Commissioner. Under these circumstances, there is a rational basis for the Board’s decision that claimant held a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position excluded under Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) … . Matter of Birnbaum…, 2014 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 11-13-14

 

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