Starting on Jan. 1, 2025, Workers’ Compensation Law §10(3)(b) has been amended, by A5745, to permit all "worker[s to] file[] claim[s] for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred at work."
 
Previously, workers’ compensation for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress was limited to only such stress that occurred “in a work-related emergency” where such benefits were only available to “police officer or firefighter subject to section thirty of this article, or emergency medical technician, paramedic, or other person certified to provide medical care in emergencies, or emergency dispatcher,” not all workers.
 
Now that workers’ compensation benefits for all extraordinary work-related stress is available to all workers, the question arises of the impact of a worker filing, under §10(3)(b), if such worker also plans to bring a discrimination case under Title VII and/or Executive Law §296 (New York State Human Rights Law) against their employer, where discrimination is typically a major cause of extraordinary work-related stress.

In fact, a major aspect of damages in an employment discrimination case is mental anguish (a/k/a, emotional distress) suffered from major depression, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder that are causally related to the harassment and discrimination. As such, practitioners in both fields (workers’ compensation and discrimination) must be mindful of whether a filing for Workers’ Compensation helps or hurts a prospective employment discrimination victim’s Title VII and/or Executive Law §296 claim, and these practitioners are going to need to collaborate in their representation moving forward.
 
As a threshold issue, workers’ compensation practitioners need to know if their filings for their clients will preclude a later discrimination case based upon the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law or even Res Judicata, because if it will, they will certainly need to obtain an informed consent letter from their clients prior to filing.
Fortunately, workers’ compensation practitioners have Appellate Division precedent to guide them on this issue from Kondracke v. Blue, 277 A.D.2d 953, 954 (4th Dept., 2000).

In Kondracke, the Appellate Division held that “[r]es judicata is inapplicable here, where petitioners were statutorily precluded from obtaining complete relief, i.e., compensatory damages, in the worker’s compensation action [internal citation omitted]. In addition, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law do not bar this proceeding pursuant to the Human Rights Law.”
 
So, does filing for workers’ compensation benefits otherwise impact, beyond preclusion, a worker who later brings their discrimination case against the employer and/or a case for aiding and abetting against co-workers? Again, we have binding Appellate Division precedent to guide practitioners from Grand Union Co. v. Mercado, 263 A.D.2d 923, 925 (3rd Dept., 1999).