New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 215 (2026)

Penalties and civil action; prohibited retaliation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 215. Penalties and civil action; prohibited retaliation. 1.  (a) No
employer or his or her agent, or the officer or agent of any
corporation, partnership, or limited liability company, or any other
person, shall discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner
discriminate or retaliate against any employee (i) because such employee
has made a complaint to his or her employer, or to the commissioner or
his or her authorized representative, or to the attorney general or any
other person, that the employer has engaged in conduct that the
employee, reasonably and in good faith, believes violates any provision
of this chapter, or any order issued by the commissioner (ii) because
such employer or person believes that such employee has made a complaint
to his or her employer, or to the commissioner or his or her authorized
representative, or to the attorney general, or to any other person that
the employer has violated any provision of this chapter, or any order
issued by the commissioner (iii) because such employee has caused to be
instituted or is about to institute a proceeding under or related to
this chapter, or (iv) because such employee has provided information to
the commissioner or his or her authorized representative or the attorney
general, or (v) because such employee has testified or is about to
testify in an investigation or proceeding under this chapter, or (vi)
because such employee has otherwise exercised rights protected under
this chapter, or (vii) because the employer has received an adverse
determination from the commissioner involving the employee, or (viii)
because such employee has used any legally protected absence pursuant to
federal, local, or state law.
  An employee complaint or other communication need not make explicit
reference to any section or provision of this chapter to trigger the
protections of this section.
  As used in this section, to threaten, penalize, or in any other manner
discriminate or retaliate against any employee includes; threatening to
contact or contacting United States immigration authorities or otherwise
reporting or threatening to report an employee's suspected citizenship
or immigration status or the suspected citizenship or immigration status
of an employee's family or household member, as defined in subdivision
two of section four hundred fifty-nine-a of the social services law, to
a federal, state or local agency; or assessing any demerit, occurrence,
any other point, or deductions from an allotted bank of time, which
subjects or could subject an employee to disciplinary action, which may
include but not be limited to failure to receive a promotion or loss of
pay.
  (b) If after investigation the commissioner finds that an employer or
person has violated any provision of this section, the commissioner may,
by an order which shall describe particularly the nature of the
violation, assess the employer or person a civil penalty of not less
than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars provided, however,
that if the commissioner finds that the employer has violated the
provisions of this section in the preceding six years, he or she may
assess a civil penalty of not less than one thousand nor more than
twenty thousand dollars. The commissioner may also order all appropriate
relief including enjoining the conduct of any person or employer;
ordering payment of liquidated damages to the employee by the person or
entity in violation; and, where the person or entity in violation is an
employer ordering rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his or
her former position or an equivalent position, and an award of lost
compensation or an award of front pay in lieu of reinstatement and an
award of lost compensation. Liquidated damages shall be calculated as an
amount not more than twenty thousand dollars. The commissioner may
assess liquidated damages on behalf of every employee aggrieved under
this section, in addition to any other remedies permitted by this
section.
  (c) This section shall not apply to employees of the state or any
municipal subdivisions or departments thereof.
  2. (a) An employee may bring a civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction against any employer or persons alleged to have violated
the provisions of this section. The court shall have jurisdiction to
restrain violations of this section, within two years after such
violation, regardless of the dates of employment of the employee, and to
order all appropriate relief, including enjoining the conduct of any
person or employer; ordering payment of liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees to the employee by the person or entity in
violation; and, where the person or entity in violation is an employer,
ordering rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his or her former
position with restoration of seniority or an award of front pay in lieu
of reinstatement, and an award of lost compensation and damages, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees. Liquidated damages shall be calculated
as an amount not more than twenty thousand dollars. The court shall
award liquidated damages to every employee aggrieved under this section,
in addition to any other remedies permitted by this section. The statute
of limitations shall be tolled from the date an employee files a
complaint with the commissioner or the commissioner commences an
investigation, whichever is earlier, until an order to comply issued by
the commissioner becomes final, or where the commissioner does not issue
an order, until the date on which the commissioner notifies the
complainant that the investigation has concluded. Investigation by the
commissioner shall not be a prerequisite to nor a bar against a person
bringing a civil action under this section.
  (b) At or before the commencement of any action under this section,
notice thereof shall be served upon the attorney general by the
employee.
  3. Any employer or his or her agent, or the officer or agent of any
corporation, partnership, or limited liability company, or any other
person who violates subdivision one of this section shall be guilty of a
class B misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136 cases (63 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Epifani v. Johnson, 65 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
Epifani v. Johnson, 65 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 9× “The complaint sets forth eight causes of action, sounding in fraudulent inducement (first cause of action), fraudulent misrepresentation (second cause of action), negligent misrepresentation (third cause of action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (fourth cause of…”
Belizaire v. Rav Investigative & Sec. Servs. Ltd., 61 F. Supp. 3d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 7× “” N.Y. Lab. L. § 215 (l)(a)(i). A plaintiff must plead that “while employed by the defendant, [the plaintiff] made a complaint about the employer’s violation of the law and, as a result, was terminated or otherwise penalized, discriminated against, or subjected to an adverse…”
Day v. Summit Sec. Servs. Inc., 53 Misc. 3d 1057 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). · cites it 24× “Plaintiff brings a retaliation claim pursuant to Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc.”
Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 3× “Maldonado, Melendez, and Vargas, that defendants retaliated against them in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law § 215 following their complaints about tips.”
Chuan Wang v. Palmisano, 157 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “149, § 148A) with N.Y. Lab. Law § 215 (2)(a) (two-year limitation period for retaliatory-discharge claims), and United States ex rel.”
Grella v. St. Francis Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 3157 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff commenced this action against HCFCU, the hospital, and certain employees, alleging that she was discharged from her employment due to unlawful age discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]), and as retaliation in violation of…”
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 919 (NY 1987). · cites it 2× “*337 Indeed, the Legislature has responded to this appropriate sensitivity by enacting numerous protections against abusive discharge and by prohibiting employers from discharging at-will employees for reasons contrary to public policy ( see , Judiciary Law § 519; Executive Law…”
Kassman v. KPMG LLP, 925 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 215 (a)(3); see also N.Y. Labor Law § 215 (anti-retaliation statute).”
Tsatskin v. Kordonsky, 2020 NY Slip Op 07617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 3× “The amended complaint also failed to state a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 215. Under that statute, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee "because such employee has made a complaint to his or her employer .”
Yu G. Ke v. Saigon Grill, Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 2× “Finally, some of the plaintiffs assert a claim under N.Y. Labor Law § 215 for retaliatory termination.”
Higueros v. New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 342 (E.D.N.Y 2007). · cites it 3× “Further, in the fourth cause of action of her complaint, the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated N.Y. Lab. Law § 215 by terminating her after she “continuously made complaints to Defendant specifically but not limited too (sic) complaints for payment of overtime she and…”
Zutrau v. ICE Sys., Inc., 128 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 5× “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Executive Law § 296 and violation of Labor Law § 215, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk…”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 215(1)(a) — 8 cases
Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Mikalauskas v. Gloss Griffin LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 34146(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
Kubersky v. Cameron Indus., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 4882 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 215(2)(b) — 1 case
Kubersky v. Cameron Indus., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 4882 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 215(a)(1) — 2 cases
Rivera v. Fortune Soc'y, Inc, 2024 NY Slip Op 31205(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
Rivera v. Fortune Socy., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 31205(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 215(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.