Bordell v. General Electric Co., 88 N.Y.2d 869 (1996)
New York Labor Law § 740, the whistleblower statute, requires proof of an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation that creates a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety to sustain a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
Summary
Bordell, a health physicist at General Electric (GE), reported to his superiors and the Department of Energy (DOE) that GE employees may have been exposed to excessive radiation levels. He was subsequently suspended and fired. Bordell sued, claiming retaliatory discharge under New York Labor Law § 740. The Court of Appeals held that § 740 requires proof of an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation to sustain a whistleblower claim. Because Bordell conceded that GE was not actually in violation, his claim failed.
Facts
Plaintiff Bordell, a health physicist employed by General Electric Company at the Knolls Atomic Power Company, reported to his supervisors that as many as seven employees might have been exposed to radiation levels sufficient to trigger Department of Energy (DOE) mandatory reporting requirements. Dissatisfied with his supervisors’ response, he reported his findings directly to DOE. Three weeks later, Bordell was suspended from his job and terminated eight days after that. Bordell conceded that GE was not actually in violation of any law, rule or regulation regarding radiation exposure levels.
Procedural History
Bordell commenced an action claiming he was discharged in retaliation for his report to the DOE, seeking a declaration that GE’s acts violated Labor Law § 740. Supreme Court dismissed the causes of action based on Labor Law § 740. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether a cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 740 requires proof of an actual violation of law, rule, or regulation, or whether a reasonable belief that such a violation occurred is sufficient.
Holding
No, because the language and legislative history of Labor Law § 740 necessitate proof of an actual violation to sustain a cause of action.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the statutory language of Labor Law § 740 (2)(a), which prohibits retaliatory action against an employee who discloses an employer’s activity that “is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and represents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.” The Court highlighted that the plaintiff conceded GE was not actually in violation of any law, rule, or regulation. The court found the legislative history supported requiring an actual violation. They referenced the amendment to Civil Service Law § 75-b, the public sector whistleblower statute, which explicitly protects employees who disclose information they “reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action.” The absence of a similar amendment to Labor Law § 740 indicated a legislative intent to require proof of an actual violation for private sector whistleblower claims. The court cited the Appellate Division decision, noting that the legislative history of Civil Service Law § 75-b demonstrated an intent to widen protection for public employees by including a “reasonable belief” standard, which was conspicuously absent from Labor Law § 740. Thus, the court concluded that proof of an actual violation is a prerequisite for a Labor Law § 740 claim. The court referenced that the plaintiff had a reasonable belief of a possible violation, but no proof of an actual one, making the Labor Law § 740 claims untenable.