Matthew L. Berman
Employment, class action and civil rights lawyer
(516) 203-7180Get an estimate

Knowledge Base

The cases, in full

Every decision cited in the knowledge base, with its complete citation and the full text of the opinion. Most have a free PDF marked with the page numbers of the official reporter, so you can quote a passage and cite the page the way a court does.

Court opinions are in the public domain. The text comes from the official New York Law Reporting Bureau, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, govinfo.gov, the Caselaw Access Project, or another free public source, named on every page. Page markers were added, and in texts from the Caselaw Access Project obvious scanning errors were corrected; nothing else was changed.

When a commission is earned

  • Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group, Inc.

    10 N.Y.3d 609 · June 10, 2008

    This is the starting point for every New York commission dispute. Note what it does not say: it does not say you need a written plan. "The lack of a specific written contract is not determinative."

When commissions must be paid

  • Zuckerman v. GW Acquisition LLC

    No. 20-CV-8742 (VEC) · September 20, 2021

    This is the only decision we found applying the "substantial" pay proviso to commissions. It is a trial-level decision, and the knowledge base explains why we read the proviso more narrowly.

Commissions after you leave

  • Arbeeny v. Kennedy Executive Search, Inc.

    71 A.D.3d 177 · January 14, 2010

    This is the leading New York case for a salesperson whose earned commissions were cut off by a termination or by a continued-employment clause.

  • Devany v. Brockway Development, LLC

    72 A.D.3d 1008 · April 27, 2010

    Read the two halves together. Work you completed before leaving is yours; business that had not been sold yet depends on the agreement. The procuring-cause limit reaches only the second category — claims to commissions on sales that close after you leave — and the decision does not address either Pachter, the Court of Appeals’ statement of the common-law rule for when a commission is earned, or Sibbald, which applied the procuring-cause test to a broker who was not in real estate.

  • Yudell v. Ann Israel & Associates, Inc.

    248 A.D.2d 189 · March 12, 1998

    Useful where the company's records name you as the rep who originated or booked the deal.

  • Linder v. Innovative Commercial Systems LLC

    127 A.D.3d 670 · April 30, 2015

    The facts did the work here: regular statements and a consistent practice. Where a company withheld the plan, never sent statements, or applied its rule inconsistently, the analysis looks different.

  • Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, Inc.

    769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985) · August 5, 1985

    The theory is available, but it is narrow: the question is whether the firing was substantially motivated by the commissions coming due.

  • Zupan v Blumberg

    2 N.Y.2d 547 · April 4, 1957

    A promise of commissions that keep coming after you leave, for as long as the customer orders, has to be in writing to be enforced.

  • Cron v Hargro Fabrics

    91 N.Y.2d 362 · March 26, 1998

    Pay you earned while you worked is enforceable even on an oral promise, even if it can only be calculated after the year ends.

Continued-employment clauses

  • Zia-Ul-Haq v. Honda of Staten Island

    40 Misc. 3d 139(A) · August 21, 2013

    The plan language here is close to what many employers still use. The decision is from the Appellate Term in a small-claims case, so it is persuasive rather than binding, but it shows how such a clause fares.

Chargebacks and deductions

  • Gennes v. Yellow Book of New York, Inc.

    23 A.D.3d 520 · November 21, 2005

    The clearest New York appellate statement that the risk of a lost or unrenewed account belongs to the employer, not the salesperson.

Chargebacks, minimum wage and overtime

  • Karic v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc.

    992 F. Supp. 2d 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) · April 16, 2014

    The most useful single decision for commissioned retail and dealership salespeople: the weekly minimum-wage rule, the chargeback rule, and personal liability for the owners, all in one place.

Chargebacks and plan design

  • Cohan v. Medline Industries, Inc.

    843 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2016) · December 9, 2016

    This is the decision an employer will cite. It shows why the plan's definition of "earned" matters, and why the fight is usually about when the commission was earned rather than whether a deduction was allowed.

Draws and advances

  • Levy v. Verizon Information Services, Inc.

    498 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) · July 25, 2007

    The leading case employers cite on recoverable draws. It was decided before New York's 2012 amendment to section 193 and the 2014 regulations that now define an "advance" and require written, signed repayment terms.

No forfeiture of earned wages

  • Weiner v. Diebold Group, Inc.

    173 A.D.2d 166 · May 2, 1991

    The case behind the rule that a plan cannot forfeit earned commissions no matter what it says.

What counts as a wage

  • Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc.

    95 N.Y.2d 220 · October 17, 2000

    Employers sometimes relabel commission pay as a "discretionary bonus." The label does not control. What matters is whether the pay is tied to your own sales under a set formula.

  • Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional Services

    19 N.Y.3d 1 · March 27, 2012

    The leading case for an employee promised a guaranteed bonus, even orally. Compare Truelove: a discretionary share of a company-wide pool is not a wage; a guaranteed bonus for your own work is. Courts later disagreed about whether withholding a wage entirely (rather than deducting part of it) violated § 193. The Legislature's findings for the 2021 amendment cite this case as "correctly holding" that failing to pay a wage violates § 193. For pay withheld since August 19, 2021, § 193(5) settles the question in the employee's favor (see Neu and Patel); for earlier pay the Appellate Division departments differ (see Fisher, Okeke and Hernandez).

Bonuses and discretion

  • Namad v. Salomon Inc.

    74 N.Y.2d 751 · July 6, 1989

    Why clear written discretion over a bonus amount is hard to overcome, and why the exact wording of a plan matters more than what "everyone was usually paid."

  • Hall v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

    76 N.Y.2d 27 · May 8, 1990

    The written plan's vesting conditions control a bonus. This is different from an earned commission under a formula, which cannot be forfeited once earned.

  • Hunter v. Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch

    56 A.D.3d 274 · November 6, 2008

    Calling pay a "commission" does not make it one if the written terms leave it to discretion. The Court of Appeals later distinguished this case in Ryan, and its doubt about implied-covenant claims should be read with 111 West 57th (2026).

  • 111 West 57th Investment LLC v. 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC

    2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03376 · May 28, 2026

    A commercial loan case, not an employment case, and no court has yet applied it to pay. But it confirms that a plan reserving "sole discretion" over compensation does not license bad-faith use of that discretion, and it resolves the doubt Hunter expressed.

Unpaid wages and the 2021 amendment

  • Neu v. Amelia US LLC

    226 A.D.3d 515 · April 16, 2024

    The clearest appellate application of the 2021 amendment to an unpaid bonus. Note the limit the court repeated: you cannot bring a wage-law claim for pay you had no enforceable right to in the first place.

  • Patel v. Maybank Kim Eng Securities USA Inc.

    246 A.D.3d 104 · September 30, 2025

    A full opinion explaining what the 2021 amendment was for: the Legislature meant to end the rule that withholding pay entirely was not a "deduction," and to make wage theft unlawful "completely and without exception." Highly paid employees are covered. Earlier First Department cases applying the executive exclusion were limited to claims that arose before the amendment.

  • Okeke v. Interfaith Medical Center

    224 A.D.3d 763 · February 14, 2024

    The claims were brought in 2017, before the 2021 amendment, and the court did not rely on it: in the Second Department, withholding earned pay has been treated as a § 193 violation on its own terms. Matthew L. Berman was counsel for the employee's estate on the appeal.

  • Fisher v. Hudson Hall LLC

    246 A.D.3d 434 · February 5, 2026

    The First Department's current position on pay withheld before August 19, 2021. Compare Hernandez (Fourth Department, retroactive) and Okeke (Second Department).

  • Hernandez Technology, Inc. v. Rivera

    239 A.D.3d 1354 · June 6, 2025

    The leading case applying the 2021 amendment to pay withheld before August 2021. It binds trial courts in the Fourth Department (western and central New York), but the First Department disagrees.

  • Ramirez v. Issa

    2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 05123 · August 26, 2026

    The amendment removes the employer's "that was not a deduction" defense, not the employee's burden of proof. Keep the pay records and the written pay terms. An earlier decision in the same case (245 A.D.3d 844) held that the § 193 claim was properly pleaded.

Employee or independent contractor

  • Bynog v. Cipriani Group, Inc.

    1 N.Y.3d 193 · December 2, 2003

    Cite it for the test, not the result. For most salespeople the factors point the other way: set territories and quotas, required CRM use, company-set pricing, and no freedom to sell for anyone else.

Employee or independent contractor (federal)

  • Brock v. Superior Care, Inc.

    840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) · February 16, 1988

    The federal and New York tests are different, so a salesperson can be an employee under one law and not the other.

Non-competes and forfeiture

Freelancers

Wage notices and pay statements

  • Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc.

    113 F.4th 300 (2d Cir. 2024) · August 30, 2024

    State courts do not apply this federal requirement, so where a case is filed can decide whether these claims survive.

Owner liability

Liquidated damages and the good-faith defense

  • Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

    537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) · August 8, 2008

    This is the clearest Second Circuit statement of the two-part good-faith test. A New York employer that says it sincerely believed the commission plan controlled has satisfied at most half of it.

  • Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp.

    121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) · July 31, 1997

    This is where the phrase "subjective good faith and objective reasonableness" comes from, and it is the sentence that answers an employer arguing it simply did not realize the Labor Law applied.

  • Rana v. Islam

    887 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2018) · April 6, 2018

    This is the case that ties the New York standard to the federal one. It is why the federal decisions on good faith are read as governing a New York Labor Law claim.

  • Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC

    175 A.D.3d 1144 · September 10, 2019

    This is the New York appellate decision adopting the federal equivalence. Note the limit: the Second Department disagreed with the late-payment half of this holding in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch (2024), and that split is still open. The equivalence holding on liquidated damages is untouched by it.

  • Martinez v Bronx County Historical Socy.

    251 A.D.3d 406 · July 2, 2026

    This is the most recent New York appellate decision on the good-faith defense, and the most useful one. It does not use the words "objective reasonableness," but it asks an objective question: what did the employer actually do to find out what the law required? An employer that did no research and asked no one fails. Note that this is an unpaid-wages case about a live-in worker, not a commissions case.

Signing away age claims

  • Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.

    522 U.S. 422 · January 26, 1998

    This is the case to know if you were over 40, signed a release, and later learned the agreement broke the OWBPA rules. You do not have to return the money to challenge it, and an agreement cannot require you to.

Signing away discrimination claims

  • Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.

    141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 1998) · April 13, 1998

    For every federal claim except age, this is the test. Note factor six: severance that is only what you were already owed counts for little, and under the age statute it destroys the waiver outright.

Claims you cannot sign away

  • Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

    796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) · August 7, 2015

    Know the limit of this case before relying on it. Cheeks is about dismissing a filed lawsuit, not about a severance agreement signed before anyone sues. For a pre-suit release the governing authority is older: an employee cannot waive FLSA liquidated damages or privately settle whether the FLSA covers them at all, and whether a genuine dispute over hours or rate can be settled privately is a question Cheeks expressly left open.

  • Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil

    324 U.S. 697 · April 9, 1945

    This, not Cheeks, is the case for a severance agreement signed before any lawsuit. A night watchman took a check for his computed overtime two years after leaving, signed a release of all his rights under the Act, and still recovered.

  • D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi

    328 U.S. 108 · April 29, 1946

    This is one of the two Supreme Court decisions behind the rule that a private release of federal wage claims is suspect. The question it left open, a release that settles a real dispute over hours worked, is still open in New York for a release signed before any lawsuit is filed.

  • Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Productions, L.L.C.

    688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012) · July 24, 2012

    This is the leading federal appeals decision allowing a private FLSA settlement without approval, and it is not the law in New York. The Second Circuit discussed it in Cheeks and did not adopt it. In New York federal courts, a settlement that dismisses a pending wage lawsuit with prejudice needs a judge's or the Labor Department's approval; whether a release signed before any lawsuit can settle a real dispute over hours is still open.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement

  • McLaren Macomb

    372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) · February 21, 2023

    Two limits matter. First, the Act protects "employees," so supervisors and managers are outside it — which is why executive severance agreements routinely carry terms that would be unlawful lower down. Second, this decision is under active attack: the General Counsel rescinded the guidance memorandum interpreting it in February 2025 and has asked the Board to overrule it, and the Board regained a quorum in January 2026. It is still the law today. It may not be for long.

Non-competes and non-solicits

  • BDO Seidman v Hirshberg

    93 N.Y.2d 382 · May 13, 1999

    This is the New York standard for every non-compete and non-solicit in a severance agreement. The partial-enforcement discussion also matters: a covenant imposed as a condition of getting or keeping a job is evidence of "overreaching [and] coercive use of dominant bargaining power," which weighs against the employer.

Forfeiting pay for competing

  • Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

    48 N.Y.2d 84 · October 18, 1979

    The employee-choice doctrine lets an employer say "compete and lose the money." Post is the answer when the employer is the one who ended the job. Note the Court’s reservation: it did not decide what would happen if a clause said in so many words that forfeiture applies even after a discharge without cause, and modern clauses are drafted to occupy exactly that space.

Severance and unemployment benefits

  • Matter of Schachter (Commissioner of Labor)

    2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 05359 · September 17, 2026

    This is the first appellate decision applying the current dismissal-pay rules, and it is a warning as much as a holding. The claimant certified on his application that he would receive no lump-sum dismissal pay, then signed the severance agreement weeks later — which turned an ordinary offset into an overpayment and a willful-misrepresentation penalty. If a severance offer is pending, disclose it when you apply.

  • Matter of Woody (Roberts)

    139 A.D.2d 879 (3d Dep’t 1988) · April 28, 1988

    This short decision is the foundation for an argument that matters to anyone who collects benefits while a severance agreement is being negotiated. The rule that protects benefits already paid from being clawed back has one exception — a "retroactive payment of remuneration" — and severance, under this case and the statute, is not remuneration. No court has yet connected the two points, so it is an argument rather than a holding.

When the employer blocks the condition

  • A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth.

    92 N.Y.2d 20 · June 11, 1998

    This is the cleanest New York statement of the prevention rule. It matters to a salesperson only after the first question is answered: if the commission was already earned, no condition about payment can take it away and prevention is unnecessary. Where the plan genuinely makes a later event part of earning, and the employer is the reason it never happened, this is the rule. Note the causation limit: the employer’s conduct has to have actually prevented or hindered the condition.

  • Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co.

    83 N.Y. 378 (1881) · January 18, 1881

    The oldest case in the library, and still the Court of Appeals’ own statement of the rule for commissions specifically. Its premise is the one every at-will salesperson needs: the employer’s right to end the relationship is real, but it is not a right to end it in order to keep the commission.

  • Gallagher v Lambert

    74 N.Y.2d 562 · December 14, 1989

    This is the employer’s best New York Court of Appeals case against the prevention argument, and you should expect to see it. The answer, as the First Department explained in Arbeeny, is that Gallagher was a stock buy-back, not earned pay: the fruits of a salesperson’s labor stand on different footing from a price formula in a shareholder agreement.

  • Danco Enters., LLC v Livexlive Media, Inc.

    188 A.D.3d 453 · November 10, 2020

    This is the employer’s best recent First Department authority on a claim that the employer made a bonus condition impossible. What it decides is narrow: a covenant claim pleaded as a separate cause of action, where the agreement expressly allowed termination without cause, was duplicative of the contract claim. The lesson is procedural — plead the frustration inside the contract claim, as the reason the condition is excused — and it has nothing to say about a commission already earned, which cannot be forfeited.

  • Emic Corp. v Barenblatt

    226 A.D.3d 502 · April 16, 2024

    This is the rule the employer will lead with, so read it for what it decides. The originators resigned, and nothing in their contracts made commissions on loans that funded after they left theirs, so those commissions had not been earned when they departed. It says nothing about a commission already earned before an employee leaves; that one cannot be forfeited (Arbeeny).

  • Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.

    58 N.Y.2d 293 · March 29, 1983

    This is why a salesperson’s claim has to be anchored in the commission agreement rather than the job itself. Murphy forecloses a general good-faith limit on at-will firing. It does not decide what an employer owes under a separate agreement to pay commissions — a contract whose benefits the employer may not destroy, which is the ground Wakefield and Arbeeny stand on.

Changing the plan

  • Hanlon v Macfadden Publs.

    302 N.Y. 502 · June 1, 1951

    This is the Court of Appeals source of the rule that a commission plan can be changed going forward. Read it for what it permits and what it does not: a change to the terms of the hiring, operating ahead of itself. It says nothing about commissions already earned.

  • Gross v Capital One, N.A.

    204 A.D.3d 761 · April 13, 2022

    The second half of this holding surprises people, so know it before you rely on the writing requirement. Section 191(1)(c) does require your terms in a signed writing, but in the Second Department an employer’s failure to get one does not make a prospective change ineffective if you stayed and worked under it. The writing requirement still matters for proving what the terms were.

  • Gebhardt v Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse

    284 A.D.2d 978 · June 8, 2001

    This is the case that draws the line precisely. The same account, the same customer, one rate before the change and another after — because the commission on the booked deal had already been earned, even though it had not yet been paid. A plan change reaches forward, never back.

Getting money back

  • Dillon v U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester

    100 N.Y.2d 525 · May 1, 2003

    This is the doctrine behind a practical point for salespeople: a company that deliberately pays a commission, knowing the facts, may not be able to get it back later. No New York appellate court has yet applied the doctrine to a commission, so it is an argument rather than a settled answer.

  • New York Eye & Ear Infirmary v Browne

    200 A.D.3d 467 · December 7, 2021

    This is the closest New York appellate authority on an employer trying to recover compensation it already paid. It is about salary rather than commissions, and it decides nothing finally — but it shows the defense has real force and that the employer carries a burden on every element of it.

Arbitration

  • Perry v. Thomas

    482 U.S. 483 · June 15, 1987

    If you signed an industry registration or employment form with an arbitration clause, a state rule favoring wage suits in court will usually not get you out of it.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto

    517 U.S. 681 · May 20, 1996

    A rule that singles out arbitration clauses, however sensible, will not invalidate one. Only defenses that would void any contract can.

  • AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 · April 27, 2011

    This is why class-action waivers in arbitration agreements are usually enforced, and why arguments against arbitration have to rest on defenses that would apply to any contract.

  • Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

    73 N.Y.2d 1 · December 22, 1988

    This is the test any unconscionability argument against an arbitration clause must meet in New York. It is demanding: usually both halves must be shown.

  • Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

    532 U.S. 105 · March 21, 2001

    Most workers' arbitration agreements are covered by the Act. The exemption is a narrow one for transportation workers.

  • New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira

    586 U.S. 105 (2019) · January 15, 2019

    A transportation worker labeled an independent contractor can still fall outside the Act, and a court, not an arbitrator, decides that first.

  • Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

    601 U.S. 246 (2024) · April 12, 2024

    A worker who moves goods for a bakery or a retailer can be a transportation worker. The Court left open whether these particular distributors qualify.

  • Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock

    608 U.S. 380 · May 28, 2026

    Local delivery drivers who complete an interstate journey can be exempt. The Court did not decide other arguments, such as the effect of contracting through a business entity.

  • Silva v. Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC

    162 F.4th 354 (2d Cir. 2025) · December 22, 2025

    An employer cannot move a delivery driver out of the transportation-worker exemption just by requiring the driver to incorporate.

Settling a class claim

  • Desrosiers v Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC

    30 N.Y.3d 488 · December 12, 2017

    If a wage case is filed in New York State court as a class action, the named worker cannot quietly settle it alone. That makes a private settlement harder once class claims are pleaded.

Is it a disability?

  • State Div. of Human Rights v Xerox Corp.

    65 N.Y.2d 213 · May 7, 1985

    This is why the State definition of disability is so much broader than the federal one. If a doctor can diagnose your condition, it can count under New York law even if it does not yet limit what you can do.

  • Matter of Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights

    91 N.Y.2d 65 · December 17, 1997

    The State definition is broad, but it still needs a diagnosable medical condition. A trait alone, with no condition behind it, is not enough.

  • Woolf v. Strada

    949 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2020) · February 6, 2020

    This limit applies to the federal definition. The New York State and City definitions do not require a substantial limitation at all, so a condition that fails this test can still count under New York law.

  • Wright v White Plains Hosp. Med. Ctr.

    237 A.D.3d 1143 · April 23, 2025

    The State law is now read much more like the City law than like federal law. That helps workers across the State, but it does not replace evidence: a claim still needs facts suggesting discrimination played a role.

Living or working outside New York

  • Hoffman v Parade Publications

    15 N.Y.3d 285 · July 1, 2010

    If you live outside New York, the State and City laws protect you if you work in New York or the discrimination otherwise had an impact on you there. Where the decision was made is not enough.

  • Syeed v Bloomberg L.P.

    41 N.Y.3d 446 · March 14, 2024

    A person turned down for a New York job, or a promotion into one, is protected even if they live elsewhere.

  • Pakniat v Moor

    192 A.D.3d 596 · March 25, 2021

    If you live and work outside New York, the fact that your employer is in New York, or made its decisions there, is not enough to use the State or City law.

Asking for an accommodation

  • Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008) · July 2, 2008

    You do not always have to ask. If your employer can see or knows about your condition, it has a duty to start the conversation.

  • Pimentel v Citibank, N.A.

    29 A.D.3d 141 · March 16, 2006

    Be specific. Say what you cannot do and what would let you do the job. This decision predates the 2019 amendments to the State law and later appellate decisions on the interactive process, but its practical lesson still holds.

  • Hosking v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.

    186 A.D.3d 58 · June 18, 2020

    Your employer has to actually talk with you and consider options before deciding nothing will work. A decision made first and explained afterward is not enough, under the State law as well as the City law.

  • Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

    787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) · May 21, 2015

    This is the federal rule, and it is less protective than New York City law, which makes a failure to engage in the cooperative dialogue a violation of its own.

  • Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District

    132 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2025) · March 25, 2025

    You do not have to prove you cannot work at all without the change you are asking for. If working without it means working in pain, that can be enough to require the employer to consider it.

  • Raymond v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund

    184 F.4th 42 (2d Cir. 2026) · July 23, 2026

    An employer that does something is not automatically off the hook. The question is whether what it did actually lets you do the job within your medical limits.

  • Tafolla v. Heilig

    80 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023) · August 18, 2023

    If your employer reads your doctor's note narrowly and never asks the doctor what was meant, that can be evidence it did not accommodate you. And being pushed onto leave after asking for help can itself be retaliation.

  • Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

    22 N.Y.3d 824 · March 27, 2014

    Under New York law, an employer that refuses a specific request without really considering it will usually have to defend its decision to a jury.

  • Friedman v Bloomberg, L.P.

    230 A.D.3d 1060 · September 26, 2024

    In New York City you may not need to make a formal request. Telling your supervisors, clearly and more than once, how your condition affects your work can be enough to require the employer to start the conversation.

  • Costabile v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

    951 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2020) · February 25, 2020

    Do not assume your employer will connect the dots. If you get a "return to full duty or be terminated" letter, answer it in writing and ask for what you need.

  • Sheng v. M&T Bank Corp.

    848 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017) · February 2, 2017

    An employer that refuses to talk about an accommodation hands you evidence. And an offer of the accommodation you asked for, conditioned on dropping your claims, is not the good-faith process the law requires.

Essential duties and reassignment

  • McMillan v. City of New York

    711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) · March 4, 2013

    Employers often say a rule is essential. Courts look at how the job really works, and discipline for conduct your disability causes is treated as discipline because of the disability.

  • Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp.

    851 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2017) · March 21, 2017

    Accommodations help you do the essential parts of the job; they do not remove them. If you truly cannot do an essential duty, the question becomes reassignment to a vacant job you can do.

When a workplace rule is in the way

  • US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

    535 U.S. 391 · April 29, 2002

    When an employer says "that is our policy," this is the answer: the ADA itself lists modifying policies as an accommodation, and a rule that applies to everyone is not an automatic defense. A seniority system is the main exception, and even it can give way.

Leave as an accommodation

  • Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co.

    457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) · July 12, 2006

    There are no magic words. A short, defined request for time to get medical care can be a request for accommodation.

  • Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A.

    22 N.Y.3d 881 · October 10, 2013

    Leave with no return date is risky under the State law, but the City law puts the burden on the employer. If you need time off, give your employer an expected return date, even an estimate.

  • Vangas v. Montefiore Medical Center

    823 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2016) · May 19, 2016

    Give your employer an expected return date whenever you can, even an estimate from your doctor. This decision predates the 2019 amendment requiring the State law to be read liberally.

Medical leave under the FMLA

  • Pollard v. New York Methodist Hospital

    861 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2017) · June 30, 2017

    Planned surgery and the follow-up visits it requires can be FMLA leave. Tell your employer as early as you can, and do not count on an unemployment decision to settle the notice question.

Working from home

  • Cangro v. New York City Department of Finance

    183 F.4th 149 (2d Cir. 2026) · July 24, 2026

    A track record of doing your job remotely, or with the arrangement you are asking for, is evidence that the arrangement works.

  • Rosenberg v Nassau BOCES

    2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 04883 · August 5, 2026

    The employer chooses among effective accommodations. If it considers your request in good faith and offers a different arrangement that meets your medical need, turning that offer down can end the claim.

Caring for a family member

  • Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union

    848 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017) · February 9, 2017

    Tell your employer why you need the time. If it may be FMLA leave, it is the employer's job to ask what else it needs, not to say no.

  • Haran v. Orange Business Services, Inc.

    160 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025) · November 25, 2025

    If time off may be FMLA leave, say so and ask for it in writing. Keep any comment that links criticism of your work to your time off.

  • Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc.

    939 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. 2019) · September 24, 2019

    The ADA will not require your employer to change your schedule so you can care for a family member. But it does forbid firing you because of that family member's disability, and what your employer says when you ask for help can be evidence.

  • Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America

    817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) · March 17, 2016

    The FMLA, not the ADA, is what protects time off to care for a family member. If your employer says your paperwork is not enough, it has to tell you what it needs and give you a fair chance to provide it.

  • Kemp v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    117 F.4th 63 (2d Cir. 2024) · September 9, 2024

    If your employer pressures you not to take FMLA leave, that can be a violation even if the leave is approved. But the deadlines are short, and under State law the clock can start when you are told of a decision, not when it happens.

Pregnancy and maternity leave

  • Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

    203 A.D.3d 708 · March 2, 2022

    A "restructuring" that lands on someone returning from maternity leave deserves a close look: who was in the room, what the new job actually requires, and what the employer said about it later.

Transfers, discipline and other adverse actions

  • Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

    601 U.S. 346 · April 17, 2024

    A discriminatory transfer or change in duties can be illegal even if your pay and title stay the same. You need to show it left you worse off, not that it was a disaster.

Disability benefits and discrimination claims

  • Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp.

    526 U.S. 795 · May 24, 1999

    If you apply for Social Security disability, or long-term disability insurance, and also believe your employer treated you unlawfully, what you say in the application matters. It will not end your discrimination claim by itself, but you will have to reconcile it. Talk to a lawyer before you file.

What you can recover

  • Chauca v Abraham

    30 N.Y.3d 325 · November 20, 2017

    City law makes punitive damages easier to get than federal law does, and it has no cap. That is one reason City claims matter so much for anyone who works in New York City.

The New York City Human Rights Law

  • Williams v New York City Hous. Auth.

    61 A.D.3d 62 · January 27, 2009

    This is the case that replaced the federal "severe or pervasive" test in New York City. The City Council later named it in the statute as a correct reading of the law. But notice that the worker lost: the standard is easier to meet, not automatic.

  • Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc.

    92 A.D.3d 29 · December 20, 2011

    Under the City law it is enough that discrimination played some role, and showing that the employer's explanation is untrue is powerful evidence. But the case also shows the limit: a worker who cannot answer the employer's reasons with evidence still loses.

  • Albunio v City of New York

    16 N.Y.3d 472 · March 31, 2011

    You do not have to file a formal complaint or say the word "discrimination" to be protected from retaliation under the City law. Making clear, in substance, that you think discriminatory treatment is wrong can be enough.

  • Matter of McCabe v 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp.

    43 N.Y.3d 365 · December 17, 2024

    This is the Court of Appeals' most recent statement of the limits of the City law's broad-construction rule. The rule changes how courts decide close questions about the elements of a claim; it does not rewrite the list of protected characteristics.

  • Zakrzewska v New School

    14 N.Y.3d 469 · May 6, 2010

    If the person harassing or discriminating against you is a manager or supervisor, your employer is responsible for it under the City law, whether or not you used the company's complaint process first.

  • Doe v Bloomberg L.P.

    36 N.Y.3d 450 · February 11, 2021

    You can sue the individual who discriminated against you, harassed you or retaliated against you, and anyone who aided and abetted it. You cannot sue a company's owner or top officer merely because of the title.

  • Golston-Green v City of New York

    184 A.D.3d 24 · May 13, 2020

    This is the Second Department (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island) applying the same City law standards the First Department adopted in Williams: less-well treatment, not severe or pervasive harassment and not a "materially adverse" action.

  • Cronemeyer v City of New York

    248 A.D.3d 432 · April 7, 2026

    It shows the First Department in 2026 still stating the traditional "intolerable conditions" test for constructive discharge in a case that included City law claims, and applying the rule that an individual cannot aid and abet a violation that did not happen.

  • Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc.

    715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) · April 26, 2013

    If your case is in federal court, the City law claim still gets the City law standard. A federal judge who applies the federal "severe or pervasive" test to a City law claim is making a mistake the Second Circuit has corrected.

  • Matter of Levy v City Commn. on Human Rights

    85 N.Y.2d 740 · June 8, 1995

    If you work for the Transit Authority, the City Human Rights Law applies to you like any other covered employer. The Court of Appeals decided this for the City Commission in 1995, and the Appellate Division has since applied the same reasoning to lawsuits in court.

  • Tang v New York City Tr. Auth.

    55 A.D.3d 720 · October 14, 2008

    This is the Second Department (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, among other counties) holding that the Transit Authority is subject to City law claims about employment discrimination. The First Department reached the same conclusion about section 1266(8) in a 2020 subway accessibility case.

  • Center for Independence of the Disabled v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

    184 A.D.3d 197 · June 4, 2020

    Although it is a public accommodations case, it is the First Department's holding on section 1266(8), and it relies on Levy and on the Second Department's decision in Tang. Both Departments hold the Transit Authority subject to the City law, and this decision holds the same for the MTA.

  • Krohn v New York City Police Dept.

    2 N.Y.3d 329 · May 4, 2004

    If your employer is the City of New York, you can recover compensatory damages under the City law but not punitive damages from the City itself.

Form U5 and defamation

  • Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc.

    8 N.Y.3d 359 · March 29, 2007

    In New York you cannot recover defamation damages over what a firm wrote on your U5, even if it was false. The practical remedies are negotiating the wording before you leave and seeking expungement through FINRA arbitration. Other states treat U5 statements differently.

Whistleblower retaliation

  • Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers

    583 U.S. 149 · February 21, 2018

    If you are thinking about reporting securities misconduct, where you report matters. A report to the SEC brings Dodd-Frank protection; an internal report alone does not, and a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint must be filed quickly.