New York's Whistleblower Law: Labor Law § 740

Labor Law § 740 is New York State's general whistleblower statute. It bars an employer from retaliating against an employee who discloses, or threatens to disclose, to a supervisor or a public body an employer activity, policy or practice that the employee reasonably believes violates a law, rule or regulation, or reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.⁠^[1]

The statute was overhauled by chapter 522 of the Laws of 2021, signed October 28, 2021, and effective January 26, 2022.⁠^[2] This page describes the law as of October 2026 and notes where the older rule differed. It is a State law, separate from the retaliation provisions of the human rights laws that are covered in what is workplace retaliation?

Who is covered?

Workers. Under Labor Law § 740, "employee" means an individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration. The definition includes former employees, and natural persons employed as independent contractors to carry out work in furtherance of an employer's business enterprise who are not themselves employers.⁠^[3]

Employers. Under § 740, "employer" means any person, firm, partnership, institution, corporation or association that employs one or more employees.⁠^[4]

Two groups have statutes of their own. Health care employees are also protected by Labor Law § 741, which covers reports of improper quality of patient care or of workplace safety.⁠^[9] Public employees have Civil Service Law § 75-b, which restricts adverse personnel action by a public employer against a public employee who discloses certain information to a governmental body.⁠^[10] See health care whistleblowers and public employee whistleblowers.

What is protected?

Section 740 protects three kinds of conduct. An employer may not take retaliatory action because an employee:

1. 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 reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety;⁠^[1]
2. Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such activity, policy or practice;⁠^[11] or
3. Objects to, or refuses to participate in, any such activity, policy or practice.⁠^[11]

Several definitions set the scope.

• "Law, rule or regulation" includes any duly enacted federal, state or local statute, ordinance or executive order; any rule or regulation promulgated under one; and any judicial or administrative decision, ruling or order.⁠^[12]
• "Public body" includes legislatures, courts, grand and petit juries, regulatory and administrative agencies, law enforcement, and executive departments, whether federal, state or local.⁠^[12]
• Job duties do not matter. The statute protects an employee "whether or not within the scope of the employee's job duties."⁠^[13] Under the federal Title VII opposition clause, by comparison, the Second Circuit has said that an employee who merely reports or investigates others' discrimination complaints as part of her job is not, by that alone, engaged in protected activity.⁠^[14]

Is a reasonable belief enough, or must there be an actual violation?

Under the current text a reasonable belief is enough: the statute refers to a practice the employee "reasonably believes" is in violation of law, rule or regulation.⁠^[1]

This was changed by the 2021 amendment.⁠^[15]

Point	Before January 26, 2022	Current law
What the employee has to show about the violation	The Court of Appeals held in Webb-Weber v. Community Action for Human Services, Inc. (2014) that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that an actual violation occurred, as opposed to merely a reasonable belief that one occurred⁠[15]	A practice the employee "reasonably believes" is in violation of law, rule or regulation⁠[1]
Public health or safety	The violation had to be of the kind that "creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety"⁠[15]	A reasonably believed violation of law, or a practice the employee reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; either is enough⁠[1][15]
Time to sue	One year after the alleged retaliatory action was taken⁠[16]	Two years after the alleged retaliatory action was taken⁠[7]
Former employees and independent contractors	Not named in the definition of "employee," and it was a defense that the individual was an independent contractor⁠[17]	Included in the definition of "employee"⁠[3]

Do I have to tell my employer first?

Only in one situation. The statute withholds protection for a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has made a good-faith effort to notify the employer, by bringing the activity, policy or practice to the attention of a supervisor, and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct it.⁠^[5] By its terms the notice rule is tied to disclosure to a public body under the first category above; the statute does not impose it on internal reports to a supervisor, on testifying, or on refusing to participate.⁠^[5]

Even for disclosures to a public body, employer notification is not required where:⁠^[6]

1. there is an imminent and serious danger to the public health or safety;⁠^[6]
2. 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;⁠^[6]
3. the activity, policy or practice could reasonably be expected to lead to endangering the welfare of a minor;⁠^[6]
4. the employee reasonably believes that reporting to the supervisor would result in physical harm to the employee or any other person;⁠^[6] or
5. the employee reasonably believes that the supervisor is already aware of the activity, policy or practice and will not correct it.⁠^[6]

The rule for health care employees under Labor Law § 741 is worded differently: protection under that section does not apply unless the employee has brought the problem to a supervisor's attention and given the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct it, subject to one exception for imminent threats.⁠^[18]

What counts as retaliatory action?

Section 740 defines "retaliatory action" as an adverse action taken by an employer or its agent to discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or former employee exercising rights under the section.⁠^[19] The definition includes:

• adverse employment actions, or threats to take them, including but not limited to discharge, suspension or demotion;⁠^[19]
• actions or threats to take actions that would adversely impact a former employee's current or future employment;⁠^[19]
• threatening to contact or contacting United States immigration authorities, or otherwise reporting or threatening to report the suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or of an employee's family or household member to a federal, state or local agency.⁠^[20]

How this definition compares with the tests under the human rights laws is covered in what counts as retaliation; immigration-related threats have their own page at threats about immigration status.

How is the law enforced, and how long is there to sue?

Section 740 is enforced by a lawsuit. An employee who has been the subject of a retaliatory action may institute a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years after the alleged retaliatory action was taken.⁠^[7]

• Where. The action may be brought in the county where the alleged retaliatory action occurred, the county where the complainant resides, or the county where the employer has its principal place of business.⁠^[8]
• Jury. The parties are entitled to a jury trial.⁠^[8]
• The employer's defense. It is a defense that the retaliatory action was predicated upon grounds other than the employee's exercise of rights protected by the section.⁠^[21]

Time limits under the other retaliation statutes are set out in retaliation and whistleblower deadlines compared.

What can a court order?

Section 740(5) lists the relief a court may order:⁠^[22]

• an injunction to restrain continued violation;⁠^[22]
• reinstatement to the same position held before the retaliatory action or to an equivalent position, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement;⁠^[22]
• reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights;⁠^[22]
• compensation for lost wages, benefits and other remuneration;⁠^[22]
• payment by the employer of reasonable costs, disbursements and attorney's fees;⁠^[22]
• a civil penalty of an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars;⁠^[22]
• payment by the employer of punitive damages, if the violation was willful, malicious or wanton.⁠^[22]

The list states what a court may order, not what any particular case produces.⁠^[22] General background on these remedies is in back pay, front pay and reinstatement.

Fees can run the other way. A court, in its discretion, may order that reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs and disbursements be awarded to an employer if it determines that the employee's action was without basis in law or in fact.⁠^[23]

Does a § 740 claim affect other claims?

The current § 740(7), headed "Existing rights," provides that nothing in the 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. The current text contains no clause providing that filing a § 740 action waives other claims.⁠^[24]

Descriptions of § 740 as a law under which suing waives other claims do not match the current text.⁠^[24] Subdivision 7 was not changed by the 2021 amendment: the bill enacted as chapter 522 prints it with no new and no deleted matter.⁠^[25] This guide does not describe any earlier wording of the subdivision or say when it changed; how a court would treat older events is a question for individual legal advice.

What do employers have to post?

Every employer must inform employees of their protections, rights and obligations under § 740 by posting a notice, conspicuously, in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees and applicants for employment.⁠^[26] The New York State Department of Labor publishes a notice for this purpose, form LS 740, headed "Effective January 26, 2022."⁠^[26] Other notice duties are collected in for managers and small employers.

How does § 740 relate to other retaliation laws?

Law	What it protects	Guide
Labor Law § 740	Disclosing, testifying about, or refusing to take part in a practice reasonably believed to violate a law, rule or regulation or to endanger public health or safety⁠[1][11]	This page
Labor Law § 741	Health care employees' reports of improper quality of patient care or of workplace safety, including to a news media outlet or a public social media forum⁠[9]	Health care whistleblowers
Labor Law § 215	Complaints about conduct the employee reasonably and in good faith believes violates the Labor Law⁠[27]	Retaliation for wage complaints
Civil Service Law § 75-b	Public employees' disclosures to a governmental body⁠[10]	Public employee whistleblowers
Executive Law § 296(7) (State Human Rights Law)	Opposing discrimination, taking part in a proceeding, or requesting a reasonable accommodation⁠[28]	Protected activity
Federal statutes such as the OSH Act and Sarbanes-Oxley	Safety complaints and reports of certain kinds of fraud, with filing periods of 30 days and 180 days respectively⁠[29][30]	Federal whistleblower laws