Verdicts

Whistleblower Statute

Appellate panel certifies questions of state law regarding limitations, waivers and the definition of employee. Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital, 4152-cvm, (2nd Cir., Dec. 14, 2007).

Plaintiff's suit against defendant former employer hospital alleged breach of employment contract and termination contrary to New York's whistleblower protection law. Her appeal of the district court's dismissal of her claims called for the appellate court to resolve questions under New York Labor Law 740, the state's general whistleblower protection law, and 741, a whistleblower statute enacted in 2002 providing certain protections to employees performing “health care services.” Finding unresolved determinative issues of state law, the panel certified to New York's Court of Appeals the question of whether the institution of a time-barred claim under Labor Law 740 simultaneously with a claim under 741 triggers 740(7)'s waiver provision, thereby barring the 741 claim, even if the 740 claim is later withdrawn. The panel also certified the issue of whether the definition of employee in 741 encompassed an individual like the plaintiff, who does not render medical treatment, and under what circumstances.

Whistleblower Statute

Appellate panel certifies questions of state law regarding limitations, waivers and the definition of employee. Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital, 4152-cvm, (2nd Cir., Dec. 14, 2007).

Plaintiff's suit against defendant former employer hospital alleged breach of employment contract and termination contrary to New York's whistleblower protection law. Her appeal of the district court's dismissal of her claims called for the appellate court to resolve questions under New York Labor Law 740, the state's general whistleblower protection law, and 741, a whistleblower statute enacted in 2002 providing certain protections to employees performing “health care services.” Finding unresolved determinative issues of state law, the panel certified to New York's Court of Appeals the question of whether the institution of a time-barred claim under Labor Law 740 simultaneously with a claim under 741 triggers 740(7)'s waiver provision, thereby barring the 741 claim, even if the 740 claim is later withdrawn. The panel also certified the issue of whether the definition of employee in 741 encompassed an individual like the plaintiff, who does not render medical treatment, and under what circumstances.