Could Agent get Benefits for 2021 Death Threat by NYC Subway Rider?

What Do You Think?

A case involving a customer service agent for the New York City subway system highlights how the standard for compensability of psychological injuries has changed, and hints at the types of injuries for which New York employers could become responsible. 

The customer service agent in that case was working in what was essentially a fish tank in the subway system in 2021 when, she said, an emotionally disturbed person began banging on the glass (which makes me feel bad for fish). The man was screaming and threatening to kill her. After taking a leave of absence and returning to, she had a panic attack and was diagnosed with an acute stress reaction. 

The Board denied her claim for psychological injury on the basis that the stress she experienced was no greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment. The claimant appealed. A psychological injury may be compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment. New York’s standard for compensability of such injuries changed, however, in January 2025.

Was the claimant's injury compensable?

A. No. At the time of her claim, the standard for compensability was narrow.

B. Yes. The Board should not have required her to show the incident was out of the ordinary as compared to what similar workers experienced.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Shakil v. New York City Transit Authority, No. No. CV-24-0785 (N.Y. App. Div. 05/07/26).

Prior to Jan. 1, 2025, for a psychological injury to be compensable, a worker had to show that the stress the employee experienced was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment. As of January 1, that changed. Now, to qualify for benefits, an employee must demonstrate that their psychological injury stems from extraordinary work-related stress. The Board cannot deny a claim simply because the stress the employee experienced was not greater than what usually occurs in that worker's normal work environment.

Here, the employee’s claim was decided in 2024, prior to the new rule’s effective date. Thus, she had to meet the prior, narrower standard, and she failed to do that. She herself testified that it was not unusual for her and other station agents to interact with emotionally disturbed individuals. The incident she experienced was not vastly different from those events. Further, these were the “types of ‘stressful situations one could expect to encounter as a station agent working in the New York City subway system,’” the court said, quoting the Board.

The court affirmed the Board’s denial of the claim.

Share This Article: