N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Workers' Compensation / ARTICLE Miscellaneous Provisions
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 120 (2026)

Discrimination against employees

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 120. Discrimination against employees. It shall be unlawful for any
employer or his or her duly authorized agent to discharge or fail to
reinstate pursuant to section two hundred three-b of this chapter, or in
any other manner discriminate against an employee as to his or her
employment because such employee has claimed or attempted to claim
compensation from such employer, requested a claim form for injuries
received in the course of employment, or claimed or attempted to claim
any benefits provided under this chapter or because he or she has
testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under this chapter and
no other valid reason is shown to exist for such action by the employer.
  Any complaint alleging such an unlawful discriminatory practice must
be filed within two years of the commission of such practice. Upon
finding that an employer has violated this section, the board shall make
an order that any employee so discriminated against shall be restored to
employment or otherwise restored to the position or privileges he or she
would have had but for the discrimination and shall be compensated by
his or her employer for any loss of compensation arising out of such
discrimination together with such fees or allowances for services
rendered by an attorney or licensed representative as fixed by the
board. Any employer who violates this section shall be liable to a
penalty of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred
dollars, as may be determined by the board. All such penalties shall be
paid into the state treasury. All penalties, compensation and fees or
allowances shall be paid solely by the employer. The employer alone and
not his or her carrier shall be liable for such penalties and payments.
Any provision in an insurance policy undertaking to relieve the employer
from liability for such penalties and payments shall be void.
  An employer found to be in violation of this section and the aggrieved
employee must report to the board as to the manner of the employer's
compliance within thirty days of receipt of a final determination. In
case of failure to report on compliance, or failure to comply with an
order or penalty of the board within thirty days after the order or
notice of penalty is served, except where timely application to the
board for a modification, rescission or review of such order or penalty
has been filed under section twenty-three of this chapter, the chair in
any such case or, on the chair's consent, any party may enforce the
order or penalty in a like manner as an award of compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Greenberg v. New York City Transit Auth., 851 N.E.2d 1135 (N.Y. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Greenberg v. New York City Transit Auth., 851 N.E.2d 1135 (N.Y. 2006). · cites it 7× “We hold that an award of damages under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 to an employee who has been discharged for claiming or attempting to claim workers' compensation benefits may include predecision interest.”
Matter of Burke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 189 A.D.3d 1987 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020). · cites it 6× “Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 17, 2018, which ruled, among other things, that claimant's employment was not terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120. Claimant worked as a subway train operator for the New York City…”
Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007). “780 (West 2005); N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 120 (McKinney 2006); N.”
Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford, 181 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020). · cites it 4× “Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 19, 2018, which ruled that claimant was discharged by the employer in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120. Claimant worked as the general manager overseeing an automobile dealership when it was…”
Matter of Nguyen v. CVS RX Servs., Inc., 217 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023). · cites it 2× “The employer did not respond and, in December 2019, claimant filed a PFL discrimination/retaliation complaint alleging that, as a result of taking PFL, he suffered a reduction in work hours, harassment, disciplinary action and a decreased pay raise, which resulted in the loss of…”
Matter of Gorbea v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 201 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022). “In 2018, claimant filed a DC-120 form (discharge or discrimination complaint) pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging that the employer had breached claimant's employment contract, that the employer's denial of several short-term disability applications that she…”
O'Malley v. New York City Transit Auth., 829 F. Supp. 50 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). “N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 120 (McKinney Supp.”
Matter of Fernandez v. REICO Intl. Realty, 179 A.D.3d 1337 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020). · cites it 6× “Claimant filed a discrimination complaint pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 120 against the employer, alleging that he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim.”
Matter of Peterec-Tolino v. Five Star Elec. Corp., 178 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2019). · cites it 5× “Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 15, 2018, which ruled, among other things, that claimant's employment was not terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120. In December 2013, and again in June 2014, claimant, an electrician and…”
Matter of Hogan v. CBS Tel. Stas., 205 A.D.3d 1269 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022). · cites it 5× “Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 18, 2018, which ruled that claimant's employment was not terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120, and (2) from an amended decision of said Board, filed October 8, 2019, which,…”
Matter of Romero v. DHL Holdings (USA) Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2019). · cites it 4× “Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 20, 2016, which ruled that claimant's employment was not terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120. Claimant, a relief tractor-trailer courier/driver for a worldwide courier service…”
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.