Summary
affirming denial of defendant's summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff's Section 215 retaliation claim where plaintiff was fired for filing complaint with state department of labor regarding defendant's failure to pay earned commissions in violation of Section 198-c
Summary of this case from Castagna v. LucenoOpinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On or about May 15, 1990, the plaintiff made a complaint to the New York State Department of Labor, alleging that the defendant had violated the New York State Labor Law by refusing to pay earned commissions. That claim was settled on February 11, 1993, for $17,000. The plaintiff was discharged from his employment on or about April 15, 1993, and commenced the instant action pursuant to Labor Law § 215 Lab., claiming that the termination of his employment was in retaliation for his complaining about his employer's violation of the Labor Law.
Labor Law § 215 Lab. prohibits discharging an employee in retaliation for making a complaint that the employer "has violated any provision of this chapter, or because such employee has caused to be instituted a proceeding under or related to this chapter". "[T]his chapter" refers to any provision of the Labor Law ( see, Labor Law § 1 Lab.; Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 152 A.D.2d 169, 174).
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that his employer failed to pay him earned commissions in violation of the Labor Law ( see, Labor Law §§ 191 Lab., 198-c Lab.), and participated in a proceeding under the Labor Law with respect to that claim. His contention that he was discharged in retaliation for pursuing the claim is supported by sworn factual allegations in the record. There is no allegation the he waived any claim for retaliation as part of his settlement of his claim for unpaid commissions ( cf., Warden v. Squibb Sons, 840 F. Supp. 203). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.