Recent Developments Under New York's Amended Whistleblower Protection Law
"Ensure that employment policies include clearly defined channels of communication which allow employees to raise concerns," write Nicholas J. Pappas and Elena Modl.
August 07, 2024 at 12:00 PM
9 minute read
When an employer disciplines its employees, let's say for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct, employees sometimes respond with accusations that the discipline illegitimately occurred in retaliation for conduct protected by law. For example, an employee may claim that the employer imposed discipline due to the employee's previous expression of a concern relating to the employer's compliance with law in conducting its business. Although the laws do not prohibit the employer from imposing discipline based on the employee's performance or misconduct, the laws often do protect the employee's right to express concerns about compliance with law. Managing such claims requires employers not only to untangle the conflicting factual assertions about the underlying reason for the discipline, but often requires the employer to sort out a complex web of statutes, each with different language and varying requirements for the assertion of a retaliation claim.
As of 2022, New York became one of a number of states that have sought to strengthen the protection of employees' rights to express concerns about their employers' compliance with law. Under an amended New York Labor Law Section 740, New York workers may now assert causes of action for alleged retaliation occurring due to complaints about a violation of a "law, rule or regulation." Now, a violation of Section 740 provides a right to a jury trial, the possibility of punitive damages for willful violations, civil penalties, a two-year statute of limitations, and other relief not previously available as remedies for retaliation under myriad federal and state statutes.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllDon’t Blow It: 10 Lessons From 10 Years of Nonprofit Whistleblower Policies
9 minute readWhistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
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 readTrending Stories
- 1'Knowledge of Mismatch:' Fed Judge Offers Guidance on How to Hold Banks Accountable for Erroneous Transfers
- 2PAGA Claims Must Now Be 'Headed'
- 3Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 4'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
- 5'Careless Execution' of Presidential Pardons Freed Convicted Sex Trafficker, US Judge Laments
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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