Lexplug logoLexplug

In re Vinluan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
873 N.Y.S.2d 72, 60 A.D.3d 237 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits the state from imposing criminal sanctions on employees for resigning from their employment, even with limited notice, absent exceptional circumstances; furthermore, the First Amendment protects attorneys from criminal prosecution for providing good-faith legal advice to clients.


Facts:

  • Ten nurses were recruited from the Philippines by Sentosa Recruitment Agency to work in New York nursing homes, signing contracts that included a three-year commitment and a $25,000 liquidated damages penalty for early termination.
  • Upon arriving in the United States, the nurses discovered they were employed by an agency rather than specific facilities, received lower pay than promised, and were placed in inadequate housing.
  • The nurses worked at Avalon Gardens caring for chronically ill pediatric patients, including children on ventilators.
  • After the employer failed to address complaints regarding overtime, staffing, and heating, the nurses sought assistance from attorney Felix Vinluan.
  • Vinluan advised the nurses that they could legally resign after their shifts were completed, but not while on duty, and he filed a discrimination claim on their behalf.
  • The following day, the ten nurses simultaneously resigned after completing their shifts or by providing short notice ranging from 8 to 72 hours.
  • Although the simultaneous resignations created staffing challenges, the facility found replacement coverage and no patients suffered actual harm or deprivation of care.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sentosa commenced a civil action against the nurses and their attorney in Nassau County Supreme Court for breach of contract.
  • The employer filed a complaint with the New York State Education Department, which investigated and subsequently cleared the nurses of professional misconduct.
  • A Suffolk County grand jury indicted the nurses and attorney for conspiracy, endangering the welfare of children, and endangering the welfare of physically-disabled persons.
  • The petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
  • The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the motions to dismiss the indictment.
  • Petitioners filed this Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, Second Department against the District Attorney and the presiding Justice.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the criminal prosecution of nurses for resigning their positions to avoid breach of contract penalties, and the prosecution of their attorney for advising them to do so, violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude and the First Amendment right to free speech?


Opinions:

Majority - Eng

Yes, the criminal prosecution of these individuals constitutes an impermissible infringement on the nurses' Thirteenth Amendment rights and the attorney's First Amendment rights. The court reasoned that the Thirteenth Amendment was designed not only to abolish slavery but to maintain a system of free and voluntary labor. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Pollock v. Williams, the court explained that the state cannot make the quitting of work a crime, as this effectively compels service through legal coercion. While there are exceptions for "extreme cases" or traditional duties (like military service), this case involved private employment where the nurses resigned after their shifts ended and no actual harm occurred to patients. Regarding the attorney, the court held that the First Amendment protects the right to provide legal advice. Prosecuting an attorney for counseling clients on their legal rights—even if that advice were later found to be incorrect—would chill the adversarial system and deter citizens from seeking counsel. Because the underlying conduct (resigning) was constitutionally protected, the attorney could not be guilty of soliciting a crime.



Analysis:

This decision is a significant reaffirmation of labor rights within the criminal law context. It establishes that the state cannot use its police power to enforce private employment contracts or to penalize "at-will" (or contract) employees for resigning, even in critical care professions, unless there is an immediate, specific danger constituting an "extreme case." The court drew a bright line between breach of contract and criminal endangerment. Furthermore, the ruling is a critical defense of the legal profession, ensuring that attorneys can advise clients on aggressive courses of action without fear of criminal conspiracy charges, provided the advice is given in good faith. It emphasizes that the remedy for employment disputes is civil litigation, not criminal indictment.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In re Vinluan (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"