Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
In maintaining a retaliatory discharge claim against the former employer, it is not enough, held a New York appellate court, to show close proximity between the filing of a workers’ compensation claim and the termination of employment where the employer offered evidence that the termination was not pretextual. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Board to find there had been no retaliation where the claimant admitted that, prior to his work-related injury, he had been advised by a representative of the employer that the employer had contacted claimant’s union office seeking other qualified workers to replace him.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Matter of Peterec-Tolino v. Five Star Elec. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8960 (Dec. 12, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.