New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 740 (2026)

Retaliatory action by employers; prohibition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 740. Retaliatory action by employers; prohibition. 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, unless the context specifically indicates
otherwise:
  (a) "Employee" means an individual who performs services for and under
the control and direction of an employer for wages or other
remuneration, including former employees, or natural persons employed as
independent contractors to carry out work in furtherance of an
employer's business enterprise who are not themselves employers.
  (b) "Employer" means any person, firm, partnership, institution,
corporation, or association that employs one or more employees.
  (c) "Law, rule or regulation" includes: (i) any duly enacted federal,
state or local statute or ordinance or executive order; (ii) any rule or
regulation promulgated pursuant to such statute or ordinance or
executive order; or (iii) any judicial or administrative decision,
ruling or order.
  (d) "Public body" includes the following:
  (i) the United States Congress, any state legislature, or any elected
local governmental body, or any member or employee thereof;
  (ii) any federal, state, or local court, or any member or employee
thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
  (iii) any federal, state, or local regulatory, administrative, or
public agency or authority, or instrumentality thereof;
  (iv) any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency,
prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer;
  (v) any federal, state or local department of an executive branch of
government; or
  (vi) any division, board, bureau, office, committee, or commission of
any of the public bodies described in subparagraphs (i) through (v) of
this paragraph.
  (e) "Retaliatory action" means an adverse action taken by an employer
or his or her agent to discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other
manner discriminate against any employee or former employee exercising
his or her rights under this section, including (i) adverse employment
actions or threats to take such adverse employment actions against an
employee in the terms of conditions of employment including but not
limited to discharge, suspension, or demotion; (ii) actions or threats
to take such actions that would adversely impact a former employee's
current or future employment; or (iii) 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.
  (f) "Supervisor" means any individual within an employer's
organization who has the authority to direct and control the work
performance of the affected employee; or who has managerial authority to
take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or
regulation of which the employee complains.
  2. Prohibitions. An employer shall not take any retaliatory action
against an employee, whether or not within the scope of the employee's
job duties, 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 the employee
reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation or that
the employee reasonably believes poses 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 activity,
policy or practice by such employer; or
  (c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy
or practice.
  3. Application. The protection against retaliatory action provided by
paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section pertaining to
disclosure to a public body shall not apply to an employee who makes
such disclosure to a public body unless the employee has made a good
faith effort to notify his or her employer by bringing the activity,
policy or practice to the attention of a supervisor of the employer and
has afforded such employer a reasonable opportunity to correct such
activity, policy or practice. Such employer notification shall not be
required where: (a) there is an imminent and serious danger to the
public health or safety; (b) the employee reasonably believes that
reporting to the supervisor would result in a destruction of evidence or
other concealment of the activity, policy or practice; (c) such
activity, policy or practice could reasonably be expected to lead to
endangering the welfare of a minor; (d) the employee reasonably believes
that reporting to the supervisor would result in physical harm to the
employee or any other person; or (e) the employee reasonably believes
that the supervisor is already aware of the activity, policy or practice
and will not correct such activity, policy or practice.
  4. Violation; remedy. (a) An employee who has been the subject of a
retaliatory action in violation of this section may institute a civil
action in a court of competent jurisdiction for relief as set forth in
subdivision five of this section within two years after the alleged
retaliatory action was taken.
  (b) Any action authorized by this section may be brought in the county
in which the alleged retaliatory action occurred, in the county in which
the complainant resides, or in the county in which the employer has its
principal place of business. In any such action, the parties shall be
entitled to a jury trial.
  (c) It shall be a defense to any action brought pursuant to this
section that the retaliatory action was predicated upon grounds other
than the employee's exercise of any rights protected by this section.
  5. Relief. In any action brought pursuant to subdivision four of this
section, the court may order relief as follows:
  (a) an injunction to restrain continued violation of this section;
  (b) the reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before
the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position, or front pay in
lieu thereof;
  (c) the reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights;
  (d) the compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remuneration;
  (e) the payment by the employer of reasonable costs, disbursements,
and attorney's fees;
  (f) a civil penalty of an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars;
and/or
  (g) the payment by the employer of punitive damages, if the violation
was willful, malicious or wanton.
  6. Employer relief. A court, in its discretion, may also order that
reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs and disbursements be awarded
to an employer if the court determines that an action brought by an
employee under this section was without basis in law or in fact.
  7. Existing rights. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any
other law or regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement or
employment contract.
  8. Publication. Every employer shall inform employees of their
protections, rights and obligations under this section, by posting a
notice thereof. Such notices shall be posted conspicuously in easily
accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees
and applicants for employment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 327 cases (90 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Geldzahler v. New York Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Geldzahler v. New York Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 13× “In a footnote, the defendants also maintain that, to the extent that Geldzahler’s complaint claims that defendants violated New York’s whistleblower statute, N.Y. Labor Law §§ 740 or 741, that claim cannot survive because Dr.”
Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 893 N.E.2d 120 (NY 2008). · cites it 15× “The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified two questions to us: the first involves the relationship between the waiver clause in Labor Law § 740 (New York’s Whistleblower Law) and Labor Law § 741 (New York’s Health Care Whistleblower Law);…”
Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 16× “’ N.Y. Lab. Law § 740 (2) (a) (McKinney 1988).”
Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 12× “Luke’s argues that Collette’s claims fail as a matter of law to justify relief, and that essentially all of them are barred because Collette waived them by asserting a claim for similar relief under New York’s “whis-tleblower” statute, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 , in an earlier…”
Pipia v. Nassau Cnty., 34 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 14× “*665 In an action to recover damages for, inter alia, violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendants, except Nassau County, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.”
Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 511 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “In the complaint, Red-dington alleged numerous causes of action: violations of federal, state, and municipal laws prohibiting age discrimination in employment; violation of the New York Whistleblower Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 740 ; violation of the New York Health Care Whistleblower…”
Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 265 F. Supp. 3d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 10× “5)) Plaintiff also contends that the Hospital retaliated against her, in violation of the New York Whistleblower Law, N.Y. Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, after she complained to her supervisors about the Hospital’s billing, treatment, and wage practices, (Id.”
Tomo v. Episcopal Health Servs., Inc., 85 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 18× “In an action to recover damages for retaliatory personnel ac *767 tion in violation of Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.”
Rotwein v. Sunharbor Manor Residential Health Care Facility, 181 Misc. 2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999). · cites it 22× “In his complaint, he asserts 12 causes of action falling within three groups: (1) unlawful retaliatory discharge under Labor Law § 740; (2) breach of contract (second and third causes of action); and (3) defamation (fourth through twelfth causes of action, inclusive).”
Webb-Weber v. Cmty. Action for Human Servs., Inc., 15 N.E.3d 1172 (NY 2014). · cites it 6× “Labor Law § 740 (2), commonly referred to as the “whistle-blower statute,” provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee .”
Fough v. August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc., 139 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 6× “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for retaliatory personnel action in violation of Labor Law § 740, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.”
Deshpande v. TJH Med. Servs., P.C., 52 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 11× “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendants, except William O’Connell, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(1)(b) — 1 case
Ramos v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 30891(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2026).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(1)(e) — 1 case
Landell v. Life Bridge Dental PLLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(1)(e)(ii) — 1 case
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(2) — 4 cases
Owitz v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2004 NY Slip Op 50046(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2004).
McMahon v. New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 3820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
Accettola v. He (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
Irrera v. Bernstein Equity Partners, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 31734(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(2)(a) — 4 cases
Littman v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 709 F. Supp. 461 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Khan v. Arena Serv. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 32037(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
DiNome v. Cordis Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(3) — 1 case
Mooney v. Manhattan Occupational, Physical & Speech Therapies, PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 8121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(4) — 1 case
Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 947 F. Supp. 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(4)(a) — 1 case
Fouche v. St. Charles Hosp., 43 F. Supp. 3d 206 (E.D.N.Y 2014).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(4)(b) — 1 case
Kirwin v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, 665 F. Supp. 1034 (E.D.N.Y 1987).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(5) — 3 cases
Ulysse v. AAR Aircraft Component Servs., 841 F. Supp. 2d 659 (E.D.N.Y 2012).
Pal v. New York Univ., 583 F. App'x 7 (2d Cir. 2014).
Clarke v. TRW, INC., 921 F. Supp. 927 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(6) — 2 cases
Berde v. North Shore- Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 3955 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(7) — 4 cases
United States Ex Rel. Mikes v. Straus, 853 F. Supp. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Owitz v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2004 NY Slip Op 50046(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2004).
Mills v. Steuben Foods, Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 2021).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(a) — 1 case
Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc., 868 P.2d 1266 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 740(a)(c) — 1 case
Shevlin v. Wonder Works Constr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
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.