A CEO Held Individually Liable Under the Freelance Isn't Free Act
In a ruling of first impression, the court held that a corporate officer can be individually liable as a 'hiring party' under New York's Freelance Isn't Free Act. The matter settled for 20 times the amount the company had refused.
20×
the amount refused
- Resolved
- Public court
- Year
- 2026
- Case
- Yean v. Tulip Health Inc. and Prita Uppal
- Index
- Index No. 651710/2026
- Court
- Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Commercial Division)
- Judge
- Justice Gerald Lebovits
- Decided
- September 2026
The situation
Jason Yean, a marketing consultant, performed health-technology consulting services on a $7,500 monthly retainer for Tulip Health, a venture-backed enterprise. After several months of performance, Tulip and its founder and CEO, Prita Uppal, sought to renegotiate his fees downward and then refused to pay for two months of directed professional services, asserting contradictory factual defenses and declining even a discounted $1,500 offered to keep the matter from escalating. The defendants also contacted a senior executive at a prominent global medical technology firm to claim that Yean was attempting to collect money he was not owed.
The approach
A Commercial Division action was commenced for breach of contract, nonpayment, and unlawful statutory retaliation under the New York City and New York State Freelance Isn't Free Acts, naming both the corporate entity and the CEO in her individual capacity. Against the defendants' motion to dismiss — that the CEO was an un-signatory corporate agent protected by the corporate veil and could not be a statutory 'hiring party' — the 'economic realities' doctrine from New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act jurisprudence was imported into FIFA.
The outcome
In a ruling of first impression the court adopted the argument: where a corporate officer exercises operational and economic dominance over a contractor — recruiting them, setting compensation schedules, supervising daily workflow, and deciding whether to disburse funds — the officer qualifies individually as a 'hiring party' alongside the entity. The retaliation claim was sustained as well, on the holding that an executive's disparaging outreach to a contractor's industry network is actionable adverse action. Having established direct individual exposure against the CEO, the contract and retaliation claims were resolved for 20 times the initial amount the company had rejected.
The full write-up
This page keeps the figures and the holding. The firm's own account of the matter, in full, is here:
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each matter is different, and the results described here were achieved on the specific facts of those matters.