An in-house lawyer who is also compliance officer may sue under Labor Law § 740

Holding The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that an in-house lawyer serving as a compliance officer is not categorically barred from asserting a statutory whistleblower retaliation claim under New York Labor Law § 740 due to attorney ethics rules. The court distinguished prior common law precedents by emphasizing the legislature’s clear policy favoring robust whistleblower protections and the plaintiff’s role in compliance rather than purely legal advice.

Why it matters

Clarifies the intersection of attorney ethics and statutory whistleblower protections for in-house counsel acting as compliance officers

Distinguishes Wise v Consolidated Edison Co. in the context of modern statutory whistleblower laws

The court’s words

an outright ban on whistleblower claims by such employees would — in this Court's view — unduly undermine the legislative purpose behind the whistleblower statute

2026 NY Slip Op 26184, at the official text

the legislature's clear policy favoring robust whistleblower protections weighs against imposing a per se rule requiring summary dismissal of a statutory whistleblower retaliation claim simply because the plaintiff is an attorney

2026 NY Slip Op 26184, at the official text

categorically denying statutory whistleblower remedies to attorneys who serve as compliance officers could substantially undermine the effectiveness of the statutory regime

2026 NY Slip Op 26184, at the official text