The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued final rules, effective May 24, 2011, interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. The new rules broaden coverage under the Act and change the focus from whether an employee has a disability to whether the employer has satisfied its obligation to accommodate a disability.
Until now, it was generally accepted that the determination of whether a particular condition constituted a legal disability was dependent upon an “individualized assessment.” Under the new regulations, however, the EEOC lists a number of conditions that will “virtually always” constitute a disability, including, for example, cancer, diabetes, HIV infection, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The rules also specify that a disability of any duration may be a covered disability, which would include episodic conditions and conditions that are in remission.
Greater protection is also afforded employees who are “regarded as” disabled. These employees are protected if the employer has a perception that the employee has an impairment—regardless of whether the impairment is perceived as an actual disability.
The Amendments Act of 2008 and the new EEOC rules are an attempt to reverse a series of relatively recent Supreme Court decisions that placed greater restrictions on the rights of individuals with disabilities. There is no question that now employers should interpret the concept of “disability” broadly, and that the focus of the employer should be less on whether or not the employee is disabled and more on whether it has policies and procedures in place to reasonably accommodate the disability.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Change in Employer Wage Notification Requirements
Effective April 9, 2011 the New York Wage Theft Protection Act of 2010 has substantially modified the existing wage notification requirements under New York Labor Law Section 195.
Under prior law, an employer had to simply notify an employee at the time of hiring of the rate of pay and pay date, and obtain a written acknowledgment from the employee. Employers were also required to provide written notification of any changes at least seven days in advance and provide an employee with every wage payment: a statement listing gross wages, deductions net wages. Payroll records were to be maintained for not less than three years.
Now, however, all employers in New York State, regardless of size, must provide written notice to each employee upon hire and annually thereafter, by no later than February 1 ,of the following:
• The rate of pay, both straight time and, if applicable, the overtime rate
• The basis of pay (e.g., hourly, salary, shift, day, week, month)
• Any allowances claimed as part of minimum wage (e.g., tip allowance, meal allowance, lodging allowance )
• The employer's regular pay date
• The name of the employer, including any d/b/a's
• The physical address of the employer and, if different, the mailing address
• The employer's telephone number
• Any "other information" deemed "material and necessary" by the NYS Commissioner of Labor
Further,
• The notice must be written in English and in the employee's primary language as defined in the statute.
• The notice must be provided in duplicate so that the employee may retain a copy.
• The employer must obtain a signed and dated acknowledgement from the employee of receipt of the notice and that it was in the employee's primary language. The acknowledgements must be obtained each and every time an employee is provided with a notice (for example, raises, annual February notices, etc.). The acknowledgements must be retained by the employer for six (6) years.
The penalties for non-compliance and non-payment of wages have also drastically changed. Employers that fail to pay wages as required are subject to a civil fine of $500 for each such failure. Employers failing to pay wages as required are guilty of a misdemeanor and can be fined from $500 to $20,000, or imprisoned for up to one year plus one day OR BOTH. An employee who is not provided the required notifications within ten business days of his first day of employment may recover in a civil action damages of $50 for each workweek that the violations occurred or continue to occur, to a maximum of $2,500, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Moreover, in any action brought against the employer, if the employee prevails, the court will allow the employee ordinary costs, expenses (not to exceed $50), plus reasonable attorneys' fees. An additional amount, equal to 100% of the wages due, will also be awarded as liquidated damages.
Employers are well-advised to comply with the new law or risk very substantial penalties.
Under prior law, an employer had to simply notify an employee at the time of hiring of the rate of pay and pay date, and obtain a written acknowledgment from the employee. Employers were also required to provide written notification of any changes at least seven days in advance and provide an employee with every wage payment: a statement listing gross wages, deductions net wages. Payroll records were to be maintained for not less than three years.
Now, however, all employers in New York State, regardless of size, must provide written notice to each employee upon hire and annually thereafter, by no later than February 1 ,of the following:
• The rate of pay, both straight time and, if applicable, the overtime rate
• The basis of pay (e.g., hourly, salary, shift, day, week, month)
• Any allowances claimed as part of minimum wage (e.g., tip allowance, meal allowance, lodging allowance )
• The employer's regular pay date
• The name of the employer, including any d/b/a's
• The physical address of the employer and, if different, the mailing address
• The employer's telephone number
• Any "other information" deemed "material and necessary" by the NYS Commissioner of Labor
Further,
• The notice must be written in English and in the employee's primary language as defined in the statute.
• The notice must be provided in duplicate so that the employee may retain a copy.
• The employer must obtain a signed and dated acknowledgement from the employee of receipt of the notice and that it was in the employee's primary language. The acknowledgements must be obtained each and every time an employee is provided with a notice (for example, raises, annual February notices, etc.). The acknowledgements must be retained by the employer for six (6) years.
The penalties for non-compliance and non-payment of wages have also drastically changed. Employers that fail to pay wages as required are subject to a civil fine of $500 for each such failure. Employers failing to pay wages as required are guilty of a misdemeanor and can be fined from $500 to $20,000, or imprisoned for up to one year plus one day OR BOTH. An employee who is not provided the required notifications within ten business days of his first day of employment may recover in a civil action damages of $50 for each workweek that the violations occurred or continue to occur, to a maximum of $2,500, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Moreover, in any action brought against the employer, if the employee prevails, the court will allow the employee ordinary costs, expenses (not to exceed $50), plus reasonable attorneys' fees. An additional amount, equal to 100% of the wages due, will also be awarded as liquidated damages.
Employers are well-advised to comply with the new law or risk very substantial penalties.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
When Your Private Social Networking Site Isn't So Private
One day, Kathleen Romano fell off her chair at work. As a result, she claimed that she sustained "serious permanent personal injuries." She alleged that the chair was defective and sued the manufacturer and the distributor of the chair.
Of course Kathleen also somehow felt compelled to show on her Facebook and MySpace pages just how active her lifestyle was, and where she had recently traveled to--all during the time that she claimed her serious injuries prohibited such activity!
So, based on what it saw on Kathleen's public pages, the defendant manufacturer naturally subpoened Facebook and MySpace to obtain copies of her profiles, including those portions that were not publicly available and marked as "private" using the sites' privacy settings. Although Facebook attempted to object to the Subpoena, it was ultimately compelled to produce not only the current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages, but also the deleted pages and the pages designated by Kathleen as only available to "friends" and connections.
The trial court recently decided in Romano v. Steelcase, Inc. that the production of such information was not a violation of her privacy because the publicly available information, namely the photos of her active lifestyle, supported the belief that the information sought by the Subpoena might be relevant to Kathleen's inconsistent claim of serious injury.
This appears to be a case of first impression. As the trial court pointed out, to date, there does not appear to be a case in New York directly addressing the privacy issue raised. Citing instead a Canadian court case also involving a Facebook page, the court explained that "to permit a party claiming very substantial damages for loss of enjoyment of life to hide behind self-set privacy controls on a website . . . risks depriving the opposite party of access to material that may be relevant to ensuring a fair trial." Well, now there is case precedent in New York and I am sure we will be seeing other cases on this issue soon.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Second Circuit Certifies Question of Improper Solicitation of Business Clients
On August 24, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: "What degree of participation in a new employer's solicitation of a former employer's client by a voluntary seller of that client's good will constitutes improper solicitation?" The question is a good one because it comes up frequently enough in business transactions . . . and litigation . . . to warrant clarification from New York's highest court.
In Bessemer Trust Company, N.A. v. Branin, decided by the Second Circuit on August 24, 2010, an investment firm commenced an action against one of its former executives because he solicited the firm's clients after he left the firm. The investment firm argued that the solicitation was improper because the former executive, and his partners, had sold their firm to the plaintiff, and the sale included the executive's firm's clients and goodwill.
Following a trial on the merits, the federal appeals court held that the former executive was liable under New York's Mohawk doctrine, which prohibits a seller of a client's good will from improperly soliciting business from that client after the client's business is transferred to the purchaser.
In posing its question to the New York Court of Appeals, however, the Second Circuit was concerned about how its decision or the analysis would be affected if (a) the seller was actively developing and participating in a plan whereby others at the seller's new company solicit the client in response to inquiries from the client, and (b) the seller participates in solicitation meetings, but the seller's role is "passive."
It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeals decides. Stay tuned.
In Bessemer Trust Company, N.A. v. Branin, decided by the Second Circuit on August 24, 2010, an investment firm commenced an action against one of its former executives because he solicited the firm's clients after he left the firm. The investment firm argued that the solicitation was improper because the former executive, and his partners, had sold their firm to the plaintiff, and the sale included the executive's firm's clients and goodwill.
Following a trial on the merits, the federal appeals court held that the former executive was liable under New York's Mohawk doctrine, which prohibits a seller of a client's good will from improperly soliciting business from that client after the client's business is transferred to the purchaser.
In posing its question to the New York Court of Appeals, however, the Second Circuit was concerned about how its decision or the analysis would be affected if (a) the seller was actively developing and participating in a plan whereby others at the seller's new company solicit the client in response to inquiries from the client, and (b) the seller participates in solicitation meetings, but the seller's role is "passive."
It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeals decides. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Gain on Sale of House Not Excluded . . . New House Not the Same as Old House
The Federal Tax Code allows a married couple to exclude the first $500,000 of capital gain upon the sale of a home if they have occupied the home as a principal residence for at least two out of five years preceding the sale. But what if the homeowners decide to one day build a new house on the same property, are they still entitled to the capital gain exclusion? Apparently not, according to the IRS. And that is exactly what happened in Gates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue where the U.S. Tax Court sided with the IRS on July 1, 2010.
Mr. Gates resided in his home for the requisite period of time before he married Mrs. Gates. When they married, they moved out, demolished the old house and built a new one. The problem was that they never lived in the new house after it was built. They sold it eventually for $1.1 million, and realized a gain of $591,405 from the sale.
The IRS ruled that the Gates were not entitled to the capital gain exclusion because they should have lived in the house that was sold in order to be entitled to the exclusion. It is not enough to sell just any structure on the same parcel of real estate.
The problem with the decision and the IRS ruling is that it begs the question: how much renovation, reconstruction or remodeling can you do to your home before the house is considered a "different" structure? Given the recent construction boom of the past few years, the decision will significantly impact thousands of taxpayers.
Until there is further clarification from the IRS or the courts, it may be wise to live in a newly renovated or constructed dwelling for at least another two years before selling . . . if possible.
Mr. Gates resided in his home for the requisite period of time before he married Mrs. Gates. When they married, they moved out, demolished the old house and built a new one. The problem was that they never lived in the new house after it was built. They sold it eventually for $1.1 million, and realized a gain of $591,405 from the sale.
The IRS ruled that the Gates were not entitled to the capital gain exclusion because they should have lived in the house that was sold in order to be entitled to the exclusion. It is not enough to sell just any structure on the same parcel of real estate.
The problem with the decision and the IRS ruling is that it begs the question: how much renovation, reconstruction or remodeling can you do to your home before the house is considered a "different" structure? Given the recent construction boom of the past few years, the decision will significantly impact thousands of taxpayers.
Until there is further clarification from the IRS or the courts, it may be wise to live in a newly renovated or constructed dwelling for at least another two years before selling . . . if possible.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Faragher-Ellerth Defense No Longer Available to Employers Under New York City Human Rights Law
In May 2010, the New York Court of Appeals in Zakrzewska v. The New School held that an employer’s defense to a claim of harassment when the employer is able to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to prevent or correct the harassment and that the employee unreasonable failed to take advantage of the corrective opportunity to avoid the harm, commonly known as the Faragher-Ellerth Defense, is not applicable under the New York City Human Rights Law. NYC Admin Code 8-107.
New York’s highest court determined that the language of the statute imposes liability on an employer where (1) the offending employee exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility, (2) the employer knew of the offending employee’s discriminatory conduct and acquiesced in it or failed to immediate corrective action, and (3) the employer should have known of the conduct, and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent it. The statutory language being clear, the court said, the fact that an employee who has not suffered any adverse employment action did not avail herself of an opportunity to avoid harm after an employer took steps to prevent the harassment, is irrelevant.
This is not the first time the courts have interpreted the New York City anti-discrimination laws differently from the New York State and federal laws.
New York’s highest court determined that the language of the statute imposes liability on an employer where (1) the offending employee exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility, (2) the employer knew of the offending employee’s discriminatory conduct and acquiesced in it or failed to immediate corrective action, and (3) the employer should have known of the conduct, and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent it. The statutory language being clear, the court said, the fact that an employee who has not suffered any adverse employment action did not avail herself of an opportunity to avoid harm after an employer took steps to prevent the harassment, is irrelevant.
This is not the first time the courts have interpreted the New York City anti-discrimination laws differently from the New York State and federal laws.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Intercepting Employee Email Communications--Not Without Warning!
An employee using a laptop computer provided by her company for work purposes was able to access her own personal email account on Yahoo’s website. From this account she communicated with her attorney about her situation at work. Needless to say, she was not happy at work. When she eventually filed suit against the company, claiming wrongful discharge, retaliation and hostile work environment under New Jersey law, the attorneys representing the company in the action discovered her emails to her attorney and refused to disclose them in the lawsuit. The issue before the New Jersey Supreme court was whether the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 NJ 300 (2010).
Although the emails from the employee’s attorney had the typical confidentiality language, defense counsel argued that an employee had no right to privacy or to confidential communications if she was using the company computer and the company had a policy that said as much, and that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. The court disagreed. The court held that the employee’s email was covered by the attorney client privilege.
In New York, a federal bankruptcy court in the case of In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., 322 B.R. 247, (S.D.N.Y. 2005) developed the following four-part test to determine an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files and email: (a) does the company maintain a policy banning personal or other objectionable use; (b) does the company monitor the use of the employee’s computer and email; (c) do third-parties have the right of access to the computer or emails; and (d) did the company notify the employee, or was the employee aware of the use and monitoring policies?
Seems like the courts are still struggling with a bright line rule. Employers need to tread carefully.
Although the emails from the employee’s attorney had the typical confidentiality language, defense counsel argued that an employee had no right to privacy or to confidential communications if she was using the company computer and the company had a policy that said as much, and that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. The court disagreed. The court held that the employee’s email was covered by the attorney client privilege.
In New York, a federal bankruptcy court in the case of In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., 322 B.R. 247, (S.D.N.Y. 2005) developed the following four-part test to determine an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files and email: (a) does the company maintain a policy banning personal or other objectionable use; (b) does the company monitor the use of the employee’s computer and email; (c) do third-parties have the right of access to the computer or emails; and (d) did the company notify the employee, or was the employee aware of the use and monitoring policies?
Seems like the courts are still struggling with a bright line rule. Employers need to tread carefully.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Proposed Revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently published a notice of proposed revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations to bring these regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
The proposed revisions provide for the definition of "disability" to be construed broadly. “Disability” is presently defined as (i) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) a record of such impairment; or (iii) being regarded as having an impairment. Within this definition, the term “major life activities” is defined as basic activities, including major bodily functions that most people can perform with little or no difficulty.
The proposed revisions set out a specific, non-exhaustive list of "major life activities," which include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, sitting, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, communicating, interacting with others and working.
The proposed revisions also set out a specific, non-exhaustive list of major bodily functions that constitute major life activities, which include functions of the immune system; special sense organs and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal and reproductive functions.
Several rules of construction for “substantially limited,” are also proposed, including the following: (1) That the focus should be on whether discrimination occurred, not on whether the individual meets the definition of disability; (2) that to be disabled, an individual does not have to demonstrate that he or she has limited ability to perform activities of “central importance to daily life;” and, (3) that the term “substantially limits” should not require extensive analysis.
Conforming with the ADA Amendments Act, the proposed revisions state that the ameliorative effects of “mitigating measures” (for example, medication or hearing aids, use of assistive technology, auxiliary aids or services) would not be taken into account in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. In addition, an individual who has only minor or no limitations related to an impairment because of the use of mitigating measures would still be considered disabled if the impairment would be substantially limiting without the individual’s use of those mitigating measures. Further, impairments that are episodic (e.g., epilepsy) or in remission (e.g., cancer) would constitute disabilities if they would be substantially limiting “when active.”
The ADA Amendments Act indicates that the expansive definition of disability will be a categorical, and less individualized, assessment of whether someone has a disability. Although the notice of proposed revisions provides that an individualized assessment would continue to be part of the analysis, it provides that certain impairments (e.g., autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy and AIDS or HIV) would consistently meet the definition of disability, and the individualized assessment could be conducted “quickly and easily” to reach that determination.
The revisions further propose that to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an individual must be unable to perform a “type of work,” taking into account the nature of his or her work and job-related requirements. This new standard replaces the current standard of needing to determine whether an individual is substantially limited from working a class or broad range of jobs.
The proposed revisions to the regulations also reiterate the significant change to the definition of “regarded as” disabled established by the ADA Amendments Act. They provide that an individual would be regarded as disabled if he or she is subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA (for example, termination, demotion) on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
What are the implications of the revisions? Quite simply, there is likely to be an increase in the number of individuals considered to be disabled. However, the proposed revisions only deal with the definition of disability. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act, they do not alter the ADA’s analysis of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation or whether the accommodation requested would present an undue hardship. Therefore, employers may still be able to challenge accommodation requests on the basis of those factors.
The EEOC is seeking comments on the proposed revisions through November 23, 2009. After reviewing all comments received, the EEOC hopes to issue final regulations in early 2010.
The proposed revisions provide for the definition of "disability" to be construed broadly. “Disability” is presently defined as (i) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) a record of such impairment; or (iii) being regarded as having an impairment. Within this definition, the term “major life activities” is defined as basic activities, including major bodily functions that most people can perform with little or no difficulty.
The proposed revisions set out a specific, non-exhaustive list of "major life activities," which include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, sitting, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, communicating, interacting with others and working.
The proposed revisions also set out a specific, non-exhaustive list of major bodily functions that constitute major life activities, which include functions of the immune system; special sense organs and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal and reproductive functions.
Several rules of construction for “substantially limited,” are also proposed, including the following: (1) That the focus should be on whether discrimination occurred, not on whether the individual meets the definition of disability; (2) that to be disabled, an individual does not have to demonstrate that he or she has limited ability to perform activities of “central importance to daily life;” and, (3) that the term “substantially limits” should not require extensive analysis.
Conforming with the ADA Amendments Act, the proposed revisions state that the ameliorative effects of “mitigating measures” (for example, medication or hearing aids, use of assistive technology, auxiliary aids or services) would not be taken into account in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. In addition, an individual who has only minor or no limitations related to an impairment because of the use of mitigating measures would still be considered disabled if the impairment would be substantially limiting without the individual’s use of those mitigating measures. Further, impairments that are episodic (e.g., epilepsy) or in remission (e.g., cancer) would constitute disabilities if they would be substantially limiting “when active.”
The ADA Amendments Act indicates that the expansive definition of disability will be a categorical, and less individualized, assessment of whether someone has a disability. Although the notice of proposed revisions provides that an individualized assessment would continue to be part of the analysis, it provides that certain impairments (e.g., autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy and AIDS or HIV) would consistently meet the definition of disability, and the individualized assessment could be conducted “quickly and easily” to reach that determination.
The revisions further propose that to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an individual must be unable to perform a “type of work,” taking into account the nature of his or her work and job-related requirements. This new standard replaces the current standard of needing to determine whether an individual is substantially limited from working a class or broad range of jobs.
The proposed revisions to the regulations also reiterate the significant change to the definition of “regarded as” disabled established by the ADA Amendments Act. They provide that an individual would be regarded as disabled if he or she is subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA (for example, termination, demotion) on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
What are the implications of the revisions? Quite simply, there is likely to be an increase in the number of individuals considered to be disabled. However, the proposed revisions only deal with the definition of disability. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act, they do not alter the ADA’s analysis of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation or whether the accommodation requested would present an undue hardship. Therefore, employers may still be able to challenge accommodation requests on the basis of those factors.
The EEOC is seeking comments on the proposed revisions through November 23, 2009. After reviewing all comments received, the EEOC hopes to issue final regulations in early 2010.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
COBRA Subsidy: A Significant Benefit . . . But a Word of Caution
With the unemployment rate continuing to climb, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "Act') signed by President Obama last February continues to be very relevant for unemployed workers. Specifically, I am referring to that part of the Act's economic stimulus measures that include a temporary COBRA premium subsidy.
The COBRA premium subsidy provides assistance for eligible unemployed workers. Briefly stated, eligible employees are those that are (a) involuntarily terminated (b) between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, and (c) have gross incomes of less than $145,000 per year ($290,000 for joint filers). Employees with gross incomes of between $125,000 and $145,000 are eligible, but they will have to repay the premium, which is effectuated through an increase in the person's income tax liability. The subsidy is 65% of the premium amount, and is for a period of up to nine months.
Employees whose job is involuntarily terminated, and who meet the eligibility criteria should look into this very significant benefit. But, a word of caution: If the employee is offered a severance package, and the severance agreement that typically accompanies such a severance offer contains a general waiver provision, that provision may affect the employee's capacity to commence legal action to enforce his or her rights under COBRA and the Act in the event that the rights are denied.
Whether or not the waiver affects those rights involves a complicated, fact-specific analysis. It is best to have the severance agreement carefully reviewed by legal counsel before signing.
The COBRA premium subsidy provides assistance for eligible unemployed workers. Briefly stated, eligible employees are those that are (a) involuntarily terminated (b) between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, and (c) have gross incomes of less than $145,000 per year ($290,000 for joint filers). Employees with gross incomes of between $125,000 and $145,000 are eligible, but they will have to repay the premium, which is effectuated through an increase in the person's income tax liability. The subsidy is 65% of the premium amount, and is for a period of up to nine months.
Employees whose job is involuntarily terminated, and who meet the eligibility criteria should look into this very significant benefit. But, a word of caution: If the employee is offered a severance package, and the severance agreement that typically accompanies such a severance offer contains a general waiver provision, that provision may affect the employee's capacity to commence legal action to enforce his or her rights under COBRA and the Act in the event that the rights are denied.
Whether or not the waiver affects those rights involves a complicated, fact-specific analysis. It is best to have the severance agreement carefully reviewed by legal counsel before signing.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
New Amendments to New York's Labor Law and Fair Employment Practices
Equal Pay Law
New York's Labor Law, Article 6, Section 195, was amended on July 29, 2009. This law requires employers to give notice to employees at the time of hire of the rate of pay and of the employer's designated regular pay day. However, effective October 26, 2009, employers will now be required to give such notice to employees in writing. In addition, employers will now be required to obtain written acknowledgment from each employee of receipt of the notice.
Labor Law, Article 6, Section, 195, as amended by Ch. 270 (S.B. 3357), L. 2009, enacted July 28, 2009, and effective October 26, 2009. Para 33-23,100.02.
Fair Employment Practices Law
New York’s Executive Law has been amended, effective immediately, to prohibit employers from discriminating against victims of domestic violence or stalking based upon his or her status as a domestic violence victim.
A. 755, L. 2009, enacted July 7, 2009, at NY ¶33-2500.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)