employer violation in New York

2015Co., 88 NY2d 869, 870 [1996]; Carillo v Stony Brook Univ., 119 AD3d 508, 509 [2014]; Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d 664, 665 [2006]).

2015Co., 88 NY2d 869, 870 [1996]; Ulysse v AAR Aircraft Component Servs., 128 AD3d 1053 [2015]; Carillo v Stony Brook Univ., 119 AD3d 508, 509 [2014]).

2012An employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee does any of the following: “(a) 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 . . . ; “(b) provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such violation of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; or

2012An employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee does any of the following: “(a) 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 . . . ; “(b) provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such violation of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; or

2025The single employer doctrine consists of "four criteria to determine whether two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question" (Lockwood v CBS Corp., 219 AD3d 1326 , 1328 (2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Batilo v Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc., 140 AD3d 637,638 [1st Dept 2016]).

2025The single employer doctrine consists of "four criteria to determine whether two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question" (Lockwood v CBS Corp., 219 AD3d 1326 , 1328 [2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Batilo v Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc., 140 AD3d 637,638 [1st Dept 2016]).

2025The single employer doctrine imposes liability for violations of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL on entities that are part of a single enterprise (Moraetis v Evans, 150 AD3d 403,404 [1st Dept 2017]).

2025The single employer doctrine imposes liability for violations of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL on entities that are part of a single enterprise (Moraetis v Evans, 150 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2017]).

2023Plaintiff also fails to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as she does not allege extreme and outrageous conduct that could be considered "utterly intolerable in a civilized community" ( Howell v New York Post Co. , 81 NY2d 115, 122 [1993][internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Plaintiff also fails to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as she does not allege extreme and outrageous conduct that could be considered "utterly intolerable in a civilized community" ( Howell v New York Post Co. , 81 NY2d 115, 122 [1993][internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023As noted, plaintiff's claim is based entirely on the alleged assault by her coworker, and this Court has held that an assault by a coworker does not constitute "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" ( Diaz v New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc. , 133 AD3d 473, 473 [1st Dept 2015], quoting Labor Law § 740[2][a]).

2023As noted, plaintiff's claim is based entirely on the alleged assault by her coworker, and this Court has held that an assault by a coworker does not constitute "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" ( Diaz v New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc. , 133 AD3d 473, 473 [1st Dept 2015], quoting Labor Law § 740[2][a]).

2009The Second Circuit has neither adopted nor rejected the single employer doctrine (see Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F3d 193 [2005]; Murray v Miner, 74 F3d 402 [1996]).

2009As originally promulgated by the NLRB, the single employer doctrine sets forth four criteria to determine whether two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question (see Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 US at 256 ; Baker v Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F2d 389, 392 [1977]; Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F3d 193, 198 [2005]; see also Cook v Arr

2016Labor 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 threatening] 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 “objecting] to, or refusing] to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation” (Labor Law § 740 [2]

2015Co., 88 NY2d 869, 870 [1996]; Carillo v Stony Brook Univ., 119 AD3d 508, 509 [2014]; Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d 664, 665 [2006]).

2015Co., 88 NY2d 869, 870 [1996]; Carillo v Stony Brook Univ., 119 AD3d 508, 509 [2014]; Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d 664, 665 [2006]).

2015Co., 88 NY2d 869, 870 [1996]; Ulysse v AAR Aircraft Component Servs., 128 AD3d 1053 [2015]; Carillo v Stony Brook Univ., 119 AD3d 508, 509 [2014]).

2012We conclude that the IRCA does not preempt the applicable provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the violations of the IRCA alleged here do not abrogate the protections provided to the defendant by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determin

2012We conclude that the IRCA does not preempt the applicable provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the violations of the IRCA alleged here do not abrogate the protections provided to the defendant by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determin

2012Found., Inc., 469 F3d at 231), there have been no cases addressing the right of an employer in violation of the IRCA to have immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.

2012Found., Inc., 469 F3d at 231), there have been no cases addressing the right of an employer in violation of the IRCA to have immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.

2024"Labor Law § 740 creates a cause of action in favor of an employee who has suffered a 'retaliatory personnel action' as a consequence of"—at the time this claim was commenced—"'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,'" among other things ( Fough v August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc. , 139 AD3d 665, 666 , quoting former Labor Law § 740[2]

2020Labor Law § 740 is commonly referred to as the "whistleblower statute." It 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 i

2016Labor 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 threatening] 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 “objecting] to, or refusing] to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation” (Labor Law § 740 [2]

2008Labor Law § 740 prohibits an employer from taking “any retaliatory personnel action against an employee” who discloses to a supervisor “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.” Commonly referred to as the “whistleblower’s statute” (Mazzacone v Corlies Assoc., 21 AD3d 1066 [2005]), this section requires “proof of an actual violation of law to sustain a cause of action” (Bordell v General Elec.

2024The medically necessary abortion coverage requirement uniformly applies to all policies in New York State that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage ( see 11 NYCRR 52.16 [o] [1]), with the exception of a "religious employer" who requests an exemption ( id. § 52.16 [o] [2]; see also 185 AD3d at 17 ).

2024Moreover, the amended complaint set forth sufficient allegations to assert liability against the defendants under the single employer doctrine and the joint employer doctrine ( see Ferris v Lustgarten Found. , 189 AD3d 1002, 1006-1007 ; Matter of Argyle Realty Assoc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 65 AD3d 273, 282-283 ; Fowler v Scores Holding Co., Inc. , 677 F Supp 2d 673, 680-681 [SD NY]).

2022Although Liberty contested the establishment of the claim, it was precluded from presenting any witnesses from the employer at the hearing because its scheduled witness did not appear ( compare Matter of McGuinness v John P. Picone, Inc. , 36 AD3d 1032, 1032 [3d Dept 2007]).

2020Labor Law § 740 is commonly referred to as the "whistleblower statute." It 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 i

2016Labor 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 threatening] 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 “objecting] to, or refusing] to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation” (Labor Law § 740 [2]