NY Expands Whistleblower Law. Employers: Tread Carefully
The amendments to New York State's Whistleblower Protection Law, which went into effect on Jan. 26, 2022, have brought about several significant changes to the Law by broadening the types of claims that employees may pursue against their employers.
March 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Whistleblower LawsThe amendments to New York State's Whistleblower Protection Law, N.Y. Labor Law §740, have significantly changed the landscape of employment law in New York State by broadening the types of claims that employees may pursue against their employers.
Prior to the amendments, which went into effect Jan. 26, 2022, the New York State Whistleblower Protection Law protected employees if their employer was violating a law that either created a danger to public health or safety or constituted health care fraud. Indeed, many whistleblower cases were dismissed because it was difficult for employees to prove that an actual law was violated. For example, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic (prior to the amendments) non-healthcare employees such as grocery store workers who complained about not receiving enough masks were not afforded any whistleblower protections because there was no law specifying the number of masks that they should have received. This is no longer the case.
|The New Frontier: The Expanded Law
The amendments brought about several significant changes to the Whistleblower Protection Law, including the following:
|- The definition of an "employee" has been expanded to include "former employees" and "independent contractors," thus adding two new categories of potential claimants that employers should consider.
- Employees no longer need to complain about a violation of a specific law related to public health and safety; they may complain about a wider range of claims, including a violation of any law, rule, regulation or judicial opinion.
- Employees no longer need to prove a violation of a law; they only need to have a reasonable belief that the employer's practices may somehow violate a law, rule or regulation.
- Protections under the whistleblower statute are afforded to employees whether or not they are acting within the scope of their job duties.
The revamped Whistleblower Protection Law is so broad that all employers, including mom-and-pop shops and the struggling restaurant industry, are now at risk for a deluge of potential claims from employees.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Developments Under New York's Amended Whistleblower Protection Law
9 minute readFormer McKinsey & Co. Partner Sues Firm for Defamation Over 'Scapegoating'
Internal Investigations and Self-Disclosures in a Time of Enhanced Whistleblower Incentives
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
- 2Obtaining Reimbursement from Medicaid
- 3NY Requiring Lawyers to Report Out-of-State Admissions, Public Discipline
- 4Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 5DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250