Employee Rights in New York: What You Can Do About Workplace Retaliation

Eugene Strupinsky • February 20, 2026

Workplace retaliation remains a pressing concern for many employees throughout New York. Whether you work in a bustling Manhattan office or a Brooklyn retail establishment, understanding your rights when facing retaliation is essential. New York and federal laws protect workers who engage in "protected activity," making it crucial for employees to know how to stand up for themselves if they believe their rights have been violated. Here's what you need to know about workplace retaliation claims, definitions of protected activity, and the actions you can pursue.

Defining Workplace Retaliation in New York

Retaliation occurs when an employer punishes an employee for engaging in legally protected activity. In New York, retaliation can take many forms, including:

Demotion
Pay reduction
Termination
Unfavorable work assignments

For a successful claim, the central question is whether your employer took negative action against you solely because you exercised your legal rights.

What Is Protected Activity?

Protected activity refers to actions by employees that are legally safeguarded from employer retaliation. Common examples in New York workplaces include:

Filing a complaint about discrimination or harassment, either within your company or with an external agency, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the New York State Division of Human Rights.
Reporting wage violations, like failure to pay overtime as required by state or federal wage laws.
Participating in investigations or proceedings related to labor law violations.

Employees who report specific forms of workplace misconduct, such as sexual harassment, wage theft, or unsafe working conditions, are protected under both New York employment law and federal statutes.

Proving a Retaliation Claim

Establishing a workplace retaliation case in New York requires demonstrating:

You engaged in a protected activity.
Your employer was aware of this activity.
You suffered a negative employment action, such as being fired or demoted.
There is a clear link (causation) between your protected activity and the negative action.

It is not uncommon for employers in New York City or Brooklyn to assert that disciplinary actions or job terminations were for legitimate business reasons. To successfully pursue a claim, you must provide evidence tying the negative outcome directly to your protected action.

Legal Steps Employees Can Take

If you suspect workplace retaliation, taking deliberate and well-documented steps is crucial. Employees in New York should:

Maintain detailed records, including emails, complaint forms, and written communications.
Follow the employer's internal procedures for reporting retaliation.
Contact a lawyer familiar with employment law, particularly one who routinely handles labor and employment litigation in New York.
Consider filing a claim with the EEOC or New York State Division of Human Rights, depending on the nature of the issue.

Seasoned attorneys understand how recent rulings from courts across New York impact the interpretation of retaliation claims, particularly as they relate to evolving work environments, seasonal shifts in employment, and workforce reductions.

Recent Example: Protecting Workers' Rights Locally

At Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., recent clients in the New York City metropolitan area have faced retaliation after raising concerns about unpaid overtime during the busy winter retail season. After helping these clients gather evidence and report the activity through proper channels, the firm pursued remedies that included reinstatement, back pay, and employer policy changes. These cases underscore the importance of immediate, informed legal action and demonstrate that robust local protections are indeed available.

Contact Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. for Help with Workplace Retaliation in Brooklyn and New York, NY

If you believe you have experienced workplace retaliation in Brooklyn or elsewhere in New York, Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. is here to assist. The firm offers comprehensive guidance on employee rights and can help you explore your legal options. To schedule a confidential consultation, call 917-717-5007 or fill out our secure online form today.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Protecting Your Business IP: Trademarks, Copyrights and Beyond

By Eugene Strupinsky • April 17, 2026

Learn how Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY can help your business protect trademarks, copyrights, and other IP assets with expert legal counsel.

Common Title Issues and How Attorneys Resolve Them

By Eugene Strupinsky • April 10, 2026

Learn how Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY resolve common title issues such as easements, liens, and boundary disputes before real estate closings.

Filing for Bankruptcy: Where to Begin

By Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. • March 27, 2026

Learn how to begin filing for bankruptcy with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY. Get professional legal guidance for your financial future.

When to Consider Mediation vs. Litigation in Business Disputes

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 19, 2026

Explore when businesses in Brooklyn and New York, NY should choose mediation or litigation with guidance from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., experienced in dispute resolution.

What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 16, 2026

Discover what bankruptcy can and cannot do for your finances. Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY provides tailored legal guidance for your situation.

The Legal Side of Co‑op and Condo Transfers in NYC

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 12, 2026

Learn about the legal complexities of co-op and condo transfers in NYC with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., serving Brooklyn and New York, NY. Contact us for legal advice.

Are Communications with AI Privileged?: Judge Rakoff delivers opinion in United States v. Heppner

By Kayla Gaisi • March 10, 2026

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, it continues to raise legal questions that courts can no longer ignore. This month, the question of whether communications between criminal defendants and public AI are protected from government inspection was answered by Judge Jed Rakoff. That answer was an unequivocal 'no.' In the case at hand, defendant Bradely Heppner was charged with fraud and arrested a month later, in November 2025. When the FBI executed a search warrant at his home, they seized documents containing communications between him and the public AI platform Claude AI. According to Heppner's counsel, these communications reflected a defense strategy Heppner had generated in anticipation of potential indictment. Heppner asserted that these documents were either protected under attorney-client privilege or by the work product doctrine, arguing that he had used Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and had shared these outputs with his attorneys. However, Judge Rakoff rejected both arguments. Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between a client and a professional who owes them fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline. It is a socially valuable human relationship. Regardless of how advanced an AI systems is, it cannot meet this definition. Claude is not a human attorney and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its users, so communications with it cannot qualify for attorney-client privilege. Aside from this, Rakoff listed other reasons why Heppner's communications with Claude are not considered confidential. Firstly, Claude is a public AI system whose privacy policy discloses that communications can be shared with third parties including "governmental regulatory authorities." Secondly, as his counsel admitted, Heppner sought legal advice from Claude on his own volition, not at their direction. Even if Heppner received legal advice and later shared that with his counsel, that does not render the initially unprivileged communication privileged. The related work product doctrine fared no better for Heppner. This doctrine protects materials prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing parties. Here, the AI-generated documents were not prepared by or at the behest of counsel and did not reflect counsel's strategy. Thus, they fell outside the scope of the doctrine. Judge Rakoff's ruling matters because it maintains the narrowness of evidentiary privileges that is necessary for protecting the judicial system's truth-seeking function. Extending privilege to communications with public AI systems could create a dangerous loophoole, one where parties could shield discoverable information by filtering it through a chatbot. But given Rakoff's ruling, the main takeaway here is that attorneys should explicitly advise their clients not to share personal or legal information with public AI systems. Despite how routine it has now become for many to ask public AI personal questions, these communications are not confidential, and may ultimately be used as evidence in court.