New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Labor Law § 741 (2026)

Prohibition; health care employer who penalizes employees because of complaints of employer violations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 741. Prohibition; health care employer who penalizes employees
because of complaints of employer violations. 1. Definitions. As used in
this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
  (a) "Employee" means any person who performs health care services for
and under the control and direction of any public or private employer
which provides health care services for wages or other remuneration.
  (b) "Employer" means any partnership, association, corporation, the
state, or any political subdivision of the state which: (i) provides
health care services in a facility licensed pursuant to article
twenty-eight or thirty-six of the public health law; (ii) provides
health care services within a primary or secondary public or private
school or public or private university setting; (iii) operates and
provides health care services under the mental hygiene law or the
correction law; or (iv) is registered with the department of education
pursuant to section sixty-eight hundred eight of the education law.
  (c) "Agent" means any individual, partnership, association,
corporation, or group of persons acting on behalf of an employer.
  (d) "Improper quality of patient care" means, with respect to patient
care, any practice, procedure, action or failure to act of an employer
which violates any law, rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted
pursuant to law, where such violation relates to matters which may
present a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety or
a significant threat to the health of a specific patient.
  (e) "Improper quality of workplace safety" means, with respect to
employees, any practice, procedure, action or failure to act of an
employer which violates any law, rule, regulation, or declaratory ruling
adopted pursuant to law where such violation relates to matters which
may present an unsafe workplace environment or risk of employee safety
or a significant threat to the health of a specific employee.
  (f) "Public body" means:
  (1) the United States Congress, any state legislature, or any elected
local governmental body, or any member or employee thereof;
  (2) any federal, state or local court, or any member or employee
thereof, any grand or petit jury;
  (3) any federal, state or local regulatory, administrative or public
agency or authority, or instrumentality thereof;
  (4) any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial
office, or police or peace officer;
  (5) any federal, state or local department of an executive branch of
government; or
  (6) any division, board, bureau, office, committee or commission of
any of the public bodies described in subparagraph one, two, three, four
or five of this paragraph.
  (g) "Retaliatory action" means the discharge, suspension, demotion,
penalization or discrimination against an employee, or other adverse
employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions
of employment.
  (h) "Supervisor" means any person within an employer's organization
who has the authority to direct and control the work performance of an
employee, or who has the authority to take corrective action regarding
the violation of a law, rule or regulation to which an employee submits
a complaint.
  2. Retaliatory action prohibited. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no employer shall take retaliatory action against any employee
because the employee does any of the following:
  (a) discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor, to a public
body, to a news media outlet, or to a social media forum available to
the public at large, an activity, policy or practice of the employer or
agent that the employee, in good faith, reasonably believes constitutes
improper quality of patient care or improper quality of workplace
safety; or
  (b) objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or
practice of the employer or agent that the employee, in good faith,
reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care or
improper quality of workplace safety.
  3. Application. The protection against retaliatory personnel action
provided by subdivision two of this section shall not apply unless the
employee has brought the improper quality of patient care or improper
quality of workplace safety to the attention of a supervisor and has
afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct such activity,
policy or practice. This subdivision shall not apply to an action or
failure to act described in paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this
section where the improper quality of patient care or improper quality
of workplace safety described therein presents an imminent threat to
public health or safety or to the health of a specific patient or
specific health care employee and the employee reasonably believes in
good faith that reporting to a supervisor would not result in corrective
action.
  4. Enforcement. A health care employee may seek enforcement of this
section pursuant to subdivisions four and five of section seven hundred
forty of this article.
  5. Relief. In any court action brought pursuant to this section it
shall be a defense that the personnel action was predicated upon grounds
other than the employee's exercise of any rights protected by this
section.
  6. 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 58 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 893 N.E.2d 120 (NY 2008).
Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 893 N.E.2d 120 (NY 2008). · cites it 16× “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);…”
Geldzahler v. New York Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 4× “The New York Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]his legislative history indicates that the specialized protections of Labor Law § 741 were meant to protect professional judgments regarding the quality of patient care.”
Hutchison v. Kings Cnty. Hosp. Ctr., 139 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 10× “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of Labor Law § 741, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.”
Pipia v. Nassau Cnty., 34 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 8× “), dated January 13, 2005, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for, inter alia, leave to serve and file an amended complaint asserting a cause of action…”
Matter of Moynihan v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 24× “Petitioner seeks to assert causes of action against HHC for retaliatory termination based on Labor Law § 740, which applies to all employees of health care organizations, and Labor Law § 741, which applies more narrowly to employees of health care organizations who actually…”
Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr., 140 A.D.3d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 9× “In an action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 741, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.”
Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 511 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “Law § 740 ; violation of the New York Health Care Whistleblower Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 741 ; violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and breach of contract.”
Horn v. New York Times, 790 N.E.2d 753 (NY 2003). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, even if the facts alleged in the complaint did not come within the Wieder rule, the strictures of the at-will doctrine itself, a judge-made doctrine, have been subject to a limited number of statutory exceptions ( see Labor Law § 741 [2] [a] [preventing retaliatory…”
GELDZAHLER v. New York Med. Coll., 746 F. Supp. 2d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 10× “N.Y. Lab. Law § 741 . A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and .”
Luiso v. N. Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 65 A.D.3d 1296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 10× “*1297 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 741, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.”
Deshpande v. TJH Med. Servs., P.C., 52 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 6× “in that such a complaint is required to allege only a good faith, reasonable belief that there has been a violation of the applicable standards, rather than an actual violation” (Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d at 666 ; see Labor Law § 741 [2] [a], [b]).”
Von Maack v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 03628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 4× “DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 741, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(1)(a) — 1 case
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(1)(g) — 1 case
Landell v. Life Bridge Dental PLLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(2) — 3 cases
Geldzahler v. New York Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “The New York Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]his legislative history indicates that the specialized protections of Labor Law § 741 were meant to protect professional judgments regarding the quality of patient care.”
GELDZAHLER v. New York Med. Coll., 746 F. Supp. 2d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “N.Y. Lab. Law § 741 . A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and .”
Gruessner v. State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(2)(a) — 1 case
GELDZAHLER v. New York Med. Coll., 746 F. Supp. 2d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “N.Y. Lab. Law § 741 . A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and .”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(2)(b) — 1 case
Skelly v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 3329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(3) — 2 cases
Skelly v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 3329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
McCormick v. NYU Langone Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 05456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
— N.Y. Labor Law § 741(l)(d) — 1 case
Geldzahler v. New York Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “The New York Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]his legislative history indicates that the specialized protections of Labor Law § 741 were meant to protect professional judgments regarding the quality of patient care.”
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.