Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the easy-footnotes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the google-document-embedder domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the ninja-tables-pro domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the spam-free-wordpress domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the themelia domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Deprecated: The called constructor method for WP_Widget class in wpcs_search_Widget is deprecated since version 4.3.0! Use __construct() instead. in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Deprecated: The called constructor method for WP_Widget class in wpcs_most_view_Widget is deprecated since version 4.3.0! Use __construct() instead. in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121
Retaliation Claim Based On Unemployment Filing Survives – Pospis Law, PLLC
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /var/www/wp-content/themes/themelia/inc/themelia.php on line 274

Retaliation Claim Based On Unemployment Filing Survives

A recent decision, Delucia v. Abbondandolo, Index No. 005793-10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty. March 11, 2013), held that, in the circumstances of that case, it was unlawful to fire an employee because they file for unemployment benefits.

After plaintiff Gina Delucia was let go by a non-party employer, she filed for unemployment benefits.  The Department of Labor began questioning her status at her then-concurrent employer (defendants), and reached the conclusion that – contrary to defendants’ contention – plaintiff was an “employee” rather than a 1099 independent contractor.   After this defendants reduced plaintiff’s hours and fired her.

Plaintiff sued under New York Labor Law § 215(1)(a)(iii), which says (in relevant part) that:  “No employer … shall discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee … because such employee has caused to be instituted … a proceeding under or related to this chapter.”  This includes, according to the court, filing for unemployment benefits.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, and lost.  They were not entitled to this remedy in light of factual questions relating to the circumstances leading up to the plaintiff’s termination and issues of credibility.  In addition the documentary evidence did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s termination was (as defendants argued) due to “economic necessity.”

The court also rejected defendants’ argument that “plaintiff’s status as an at will employee fatally compromises the viability of the underlying claim sounding in retaliation”, citing Court of Appeals precedent that Labor Law § 215 operates as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

Share This: