Opinion ID: 1194597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Reddington Trigger the Waiver?

Text: The second clause of N.Y. Lab. Law § 740(7) provides, in relevant part, that the institution  not the maintenance, pendency, or favorable resolution  of an action in accordance with section 740 shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other . . . law. Several courts have suggested that the inclusion of a section 740 claim in a complaint triggers the waiver even if the section 740 claim is facially defective and even if the claim is promptly withdrawn. For example, in Pipia v. Nassau County, 34 A.D.3d 664, 826 N.Y.S.2d 318 (App. Div.2006), the plaintiff alleged a violation of section 740, as well as eight other causes of action, seven of which arose from an allegedly unlawful termination. He moved for leave to amend the complaint to withdraw the section 740 claim and replace it with a section 741 claim. The Appellate Division held that the amended complaint did not state a claim under section 741, and the court also dismissed the seven claims related to the termination because [t]he mere commencement of an action under Labor Law § 740(4) . . . acts as an election of remedies, waiving other causes of action relating to the alleged retaliatory discharge, irrespective of the disposition of such claims. Id. at 320. Similarly, in Hayes v. Staten Island University Hospital, 39 A.D.3d 593, 834 N.Y.S.2d 274 (App.Div.2007), the plaintiff alleged a violation of section 740 and breach of contract. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff could not proceed on her contract claim even after she withdrew her section 740 claim. See id. at 275 ([T]he plaintiff's attempt to amend the complaint to exclude the Labor Law § 740 cause of action did not nullify the waiver. (citations omitted)). Other courts have adopted a somewhat more flexible reading, allowing plaintiffs a grace period within which they can withdraw section 740 and nullify the effect of the waiver. See, e.g., Nicholls v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 03-CV-6233 (JBW), 2004 WL 1533831, at  (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2004) (The court will permit withdrawal of the whistleblower claims . . . by amendment within thirty days. Withdrawal will be deemed the equivalent [of] failing to file the claim.). The court in Nicholls interpreted the waiver provision to mitigate what it saw as a harsh result. Id.