New York’s Exclusivity Doctrine

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE 

Workers' compensation is the sole remedy for employees who suffer injuries or illnesses that arise out of and in the course of employment. N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 29(6). 

This means that the employee (or, if he dies, his dependents) cannot sue the employer for personal injury, such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused her injury.  

INJURIES BY COWORKERS 

The doctrine also applies where an employee is injured due to a coworker’s negligence, and both employees were acting in the scope of their employment at the time of the injury. 

INTENTIONAL WRONG EXCEPTION 

Employees whose injuries arise out of and in the course of employment can sue their employers who intentionally injure them. 

Examples of intentional harm are assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distrress, false imprisonment, and defamation. 

LACK OF COVERAGE EXCEPTION  

The doctrine does not apply if the employer has not obtained workers’ compensation coverage. 

NEW YORK CITY AGENCY EXCEPTION 

The doctrine does not apply to employees of the N.Y.P.D., F.D.N.Y., or the New York City Department of Sanitation. 

CLAIMS THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THE WCA 

Lawsuits against third parties 

Employees can sue a third party whose negligence contributed to a workplace injury. For example, they may be able to sue a manufacturer or property owner whose negligence contributed to the injury. This might occur, for instance, where the employee was injured as a result of using defective equipment supplied by an outside manufacturer. 

Note: If the employee sues the third party, the exclusivity doctrine generally prevents the third party from turning around and suing the employer for contribution. However, there is an exception; the employer may be liable to a third party for the employee’s injuries where the employee sustained a “grave injury.” That term is defined in the workers’ compensation statute, N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 29(6), and includes “[d]eath, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand or foot.” 

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 

The exclusivity doctrine applies to some independent contractors — specifically, those who are considered “special employees.” This is the case even if a contract specifically says the worker is an “independent contractor.” Under the special employer/employee doctrine, courts consider several factors in determining whether a worker is subject to the exclusivity doctrine. One important factor is the extent to which the employer has the right to control the means and methods of the employee’s work. 

RECENT CASES 

Hamer v. FPG America, LLC., No. 2022-06699 (N.Y. App. Div. 02/05/25) 

A company’s general manager was told to fire one of its employees who had a history of making threats and being intoxicated at work. The fired employee followed the GM to another of the company’s locations and shot him. The exclusivity doctrine prevented the decedent’s wife from suing the company for negligence with respect to its safety protocols. 

Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 20-cv-5593 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. 03/12/25) 

A Fox News employee sued the company claiming that it negligently supervised a coworker who sexually harassed and assaulted her. The claim was barred by the exclusivity doctrine. 

Looking for compliance info for your state? Look to Simply Research

Share This Article: