R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-48-5 (2026)

Prohibited acts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided by this chapter.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee for exercising any right provided by this chapter.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: Moran v. GTech Corp., 989 F. Supp. 84 (D.R.I. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moran v. GTech Corp., 989 F. Supp. 84 (D.R.I. 1997). · cites it 3× “Also of relevance is § 28-48-5, which prohibits an employer from interfering with, punishing, or retaliating against an employee .”
Bellisle v. Landmark Med. Ctr., 207 F. Supp. 3d 153 (D.R.I. 2016). · cites it 2× “220 (c); R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-48-5. An employee can make a prima facie showing of illegal retaliation if she demonstrates that (1) she availed herself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) an employment decision adversely affected her; and (3) there is a causal connection…”
Reid v. Citizens Sav. Bank/Citizens Trust Co., 887 F. Supp. 43 (D.R.I. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 28-48-5, *47 entitled “Prohibited Acts” provides that it shall be unlawful for any employer to “(a) * * * interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided by this chapter (b) * * * discharge, fíne, suspend, expel,…”
McNiel v. Atl. Props. Mgmt. Corp. (D.R.I. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 2615 (b); R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-48-5. 6 Ms. Ricci heavily ties this claim to her FMLA claim, arguing that she would never have been terminated if Defendants gave her the FMLA leave, in part alleging that Defendants denied her the FMLA leave to start the process of terminating…”
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.