Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
When Minnesota Lynx star Napheesa Collier stood at the microphone during a recent post-game press conference and called out WNBA commissioner, Cathy Engelbert, she wasn’t just voicing frustration over referees. She was putting leadership, and accountability, on notice. Collier’s statement directly addressed Engelbert with numerous player concerns, including game officiating, player safety, and gender pay disparity. Collier’s remarks, delivered in front of cameras and echoed across social media, instantly transcended sports headlines.
However, the sentiments also touched on the same core legal and ethical principles that sit at the heart of New York Labor Law § 740 (NYLL 740), New York’s strengthened whistleblower protection statute. Though Collier’s dispute arose in professional sports rather than corporate America, her decision to publicly call out leadership mirrored the kind of protected activity that New York employees, human resources departments, and compliance officers all navigate in the workplace every day.
For decades, NYLL 740 was a relatively narrow law. It primarily shielded healthcare workers or employees exposing public-health dangers. That changed dramatically with the 2022 amendments, which expanded protections to all employees, former employees, and independent contractors who, in good faith, report or object to employer conduct they reasonably believe violates a law or poses a danger to the public.
The law no longer requires proof that an employer’s act actually breaks the law, only that the employee reasonably believed it did. It also widened the scope of “retaliation” to include threats, demotions, blacklisting, or damage to future employment prospects. In other words, whistleblowers in New York now have broader legal armor than ever before.
At its core, NYLL 740 reflects a policy choice: society benefits when workers can speak out about wrongdoing without fear. It acknowledges that silence often stems from fear of reprisal, and that protection against retaliation is what allows integrity to thrive inside institutions, from hospitals to hedge funds to the entertainment industry, and, yes, sports leagues.
When Collier used her platform to criticize WNBA leadership, she exercised the same type of “protected voice” that NYLL 740 seeks to safeguard in workplaces across New York. She identified what she viewed as systemic failures: officiating inconsistencies, disregard for player safety, and leadership dismissiveness. Her statement was not reckless; it was deliberate and grounded in advocacy for accountability and reform.
In the private sector, that act of speaking up could trigger NYLL 740’s protection against retaliation. If an employer were to bench, fine, or isolate an employee for raising similar concerns, a court could view that as retaliatory conduct. The WNBA episode underscores how easily leadership missteps, minimizing or mocking valid complaints, can escalate into public crises and potential legal exposure.
From a legal standpoint, retaliation claims often hinge less on the complaint itself and more on how leadership responds to it. Employers who dismiss, ridicule, or retaliate against employees for raising issues risk not only liability under NYLL 740 but also long-term reputational harm.
The WNBA’s reaction to Collier’s criticism has already become a case study in public perception management. Commissioner Engelbert’s attempt to dispute Collier’s account, rather than address the substance of the concerns, fueled a narrative that player voices were being ignored. The fallout serves as a cautionary tale for all employers: when leadership appears defensive rather than receptive, it invites both public backlash and legal scrutiny.
In the context of NYLL 740, employers in New York are required to post whistleblower rights conspicuously, train managers on non-retaliation, and maintain internal mechanisms for safe reporting. But compliance alone is not enough. The best defense to a whistleblower claim is a culture of trust, one where concerns are acknowledged, investigated, and resolved without hostility.
The parallels between Collier’s advocacy and workplace whistleblowing are striking. Her public platform magnified the same tension lawyers see every day between corporate image and employee integrity.
For employment lawyers counseling businesses, the message is clear: build systems that make internal reporting meaningful. Encourage leadership to listen before reacting. Document legitimate reasons for discipline to avoid the appearance of retaliation. And remember that even threats of adverse action, under the amended NYLL 740 statute, can trigger liability.
For employees, the takeaway is equally important. The law now protects not just those who “prove” misconduct, but also those who reasonably believe they witnessed it. That protection extends to former employees and independent contractors, acknowledging that integrity doesn’t end when a paycheck does.
Napheesa Collier’s courage to confront the WNBA commissioner in public was not an act of rebellion, it was an act of responsibility. She reminded the world that accountability is not optional for leadership, whether in a basketball league or a Fortune 500 boardroom.
NYLL 740 embodies the same ethos: that speaking up should not come at the price of one’s career. In New York’s evolving legal landscape, whistleblower protections are no longer niche, they are mainstream. And as Collier’s press conference proves, when those in power ignore valid concerns, the conversation will find its way to the public arena, where reputations, not just lawsuits, are on the line.
For employment counsel, the key lesson is this: Listen. Document. Respond. And don’t assume that high-profile employees speaking out can be ignored without risk.
Jesse Weinstein is a Partner at the law firm of Phillips & Associates, PLLC.
