Effective Nov. 17, 2023, New York General Obligations Law 5-336 was amended to further restrict employers’ use of non-disclosure or confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements when the factual foundation involves discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Since its enactment, the law has broadly prohibited non-disclosure provisions in agreements to settle discrimination claims “unless the condition of confidentiality is the complainant’s preference.”[1]

Read More >> New York Further Restricts Employers’ Use of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Certain Settlement Agreements

On Sept. 14, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed three pieces of legislation into law, all of which are reflective of Gov. Hochul’s ongoing efforts to strengthen workers’ rights in New York State.

Written Notice of Unemployment Benefits

Bill (S. 4878-A/A. 398-A) amends Section 590 of the Labor Law. Under this new legislation, employers must provide written notice of eligibility for unemployment benefits to any employee who has been terminated, temporarily separated, experienced a reduction in hours or any other interruption of continued employment that results in total or partial unemployment. This information must be disclosed on a form furnished or approved by the Department of Labor (DOL).

The new law will take effect on Nov. 13, 2023.

Personal Account Information Disclosure

Beginning March 12, 2024, employers are prohibited from requesting, requiring or coercing an employee or job applicant to: (i) disclose a username and password or other login information in order to access a personal account through an electronic communication device; (ii) access a personal account in the employer’s presence; or (iii) reproduce information contained within a personal account through unlawful measures. This new legislation, which amends the Labor Law to add section 201-i, prohibits an employer from discharging or disciplining an employee or refusing to hire an applicant for failure to disclose such information.

This law is also subject to certain exceptions and limitations. For example, an employer may require disclosure of personal information in order to access nonpersonal accounts that allow access to the employer’s internal computer or information systems. Employers may also view, access and rely on information obtained through the public domain. The law also allows an employer to obtain login information for accounts provided by the employer where the account is used for business purposes and the employee was provided prior notice of the employer’s right to inquire about such information.

An employer is also permitted to access an electronic communications device which is paid for in whole or in part by the employer where the provision of or payment for such device was conditioned on the employer’s right to access. However, the employee must have been provided with prior notice of the condition and explicitly agreed to it. Nevertheless, the employer is still prohibited from accessing any personal accounts on the device.

This law excludes law enforcement agencies, fire departments and departments of corrections and community supervision.

DOL Notices to Unemployment Applicants

Under this new legislation, the DOL is now required to provide notice to unemployment applicants of the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children (WIC). This new law takes effect Jan. 12, 2024.

If you have any questions about the information presented in this memo, please contact Kali Schreiner, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at Bond with whom you are regularly in contact.

In June 2020, the New York Legislature enacted Article 5, Section 75 of the New York Executive Laws, which established the Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office (LEMIO). In response to the nationwide protests following the killing of George Floyd, LEMIO was created to prevent and remedy misconduct committed by officers of New York law enforcement agencies, adding a layer of accountability outside the agencies themselves. The office’s mission is to identify and investigate officer misconduct and assist agencies in improving their policies and practices. It is important to note that LEMIO is meant to supplement, not replace, existing accountability procedures where they are lacking. These changes are intended to increase transparency and accountability surrounding officer misconduct, thereby increasing public safety and trust in law enforcement as a whole.

Read More >> The New York State Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office: What Law Enforcement Agencies Need to Know

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court’s ruling that an employer was not subject to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and New York Labor Law § 860 (the WARN Acts) when they closed a buffet restaurant and laid off over one hundred employees. In Roberts v. Genting New York, LLC, No. 21-833, the Second Circuit held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that for purposes of the WARN Acts, the buffet was an operating unit and, therefore, Defendants were subject to the written notice requirements as prescribed by law.

Read More >> Taking a Gamble: Plant Closings and Mass Layoffs Under the WARN Act

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) returned to its earlier precedent “applying setting-specific standards” in cases involving employees who are disciplined for misconduct that occurs during activity otherwise protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board announced its return to the “traditional standards” earlier this month in Lion Elastomers LCC II.[1]

Read More >> NLRB Returns to Setting-Specific Standards for Employee Misconduct Occurring in the Course of Protected Activity

On March 29, 2023, the New York Department of Labor announced a proposal to update the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (NY WARN) Act regulations to provide clarification and conform to statutory changes enacted in 2021. The public comment period for the proposed regulations will remain open until May 30, 2023.

The NY WARN Act, originally enacted in 2008, and the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) require private employers to provide employees with written notice of impending mass layoffs, plant closures and relocations.

Read More >> New York Proposes Update to WARN Act

On Feb. 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) ruled in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, that the mere proffer of a draft severance agreement containing broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). You can read our prior blog post outlining the details of the Board’s decision here.

Read More >> NLRB General Counsel Releases Guidance on Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision

On March 10, 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (which enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and other federal wage and hour laws) announced that one of its top enforcement priorities is to protect workers from retaliation for exercising their rights. The USDOL launched an anti-retaliation page on its web site and published a Field Assistance Bulletin on the subject of retaliation.

Read More >> USDOL’S Wage and Hour Division Announces Priority of Protecting Workers from Retaliation

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), three federal agencies that enforce major federal labor and employment laws, are joining forces to combat employer retaliation. Employers must be aware that these federal agencies are moving forward with concrete steps to jointly coordinate efforts to take action and litigate against workplace violations and are incentivizing workers to come forward with their concerns.

Read More >> Employers Take Notice: The NLRB, the DOL and the EEOC Are Working Together to Combat Employer Retaliation

It seems that change is the only constant when it comes to OSHA’s Vax or Test Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Here is the current status:

The Supreme Court’s Decision is Pending

On Friday, Jan. 7, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the ETS at a special session of the Court.¹ Challengers to the ETS requested that the Court issue a stay to stop the ETS before Jan. 10, stating that the mandate was overly broad and was a question that should be left to Congress or to be decided at the state-specific level. Though one cannot predict how the Court will rule, based on their line of questioning, a majority of the justices appeared to be skeptical of the ETS with Justice Alito quoting the late Justice Scalia when he described OSHA’s interpretation as “squeezing an elephant into a mousehole.” At the hearing, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh focused on the Major Questions Doctrine.² The justices also focused on whether OSHA had the authority to mandate a vaccine that impacts not only the workplace, but also employees’ lives outside the workplace, and is, to quote Chief Justice Roberts, an “out-in-the-world issue.” Additionally, the justices floated the idea of issuing a brief administrative stay until they could make a decision. Solicitor General Prelogar, appearing for OSHA, obviously disagreed and said that the Jan. 10 deadline did not pose a major burden on businesses, except for imposing mask requirements. The Court has announced that it will be issuing “one or more opinions” on Jan. 13. It is unclear if one of these opinions will be with respect to the ETS. We are awaiting the Court’s decision and will keep you informed.

Read More >> Status Update on OSHA’s Vax or Test Mandate: Supreme Court’s Decision is Pending; First Compliance Date is Here; OSHA Clarifies Additional Questions on the Mandate

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) litigation is gearing up in the wake of millions of COVID-19 related layoffs that took place in 2020. 

The Federal WARN Act applies to employers with 100 or more employees, and typically requires written notice 60 days in advance of a plant closing or mass layoff. The Act permits employers to reduce this notice period upon showing that a statutory exception applies. Specifically, the Act contains exceptions relating to faltering companies, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disasters. If an employee sues his employer for failure to provide statutorily required notice, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that one of these exceptions applies. 

Read More >> Federal Court in Florida Issues Decision in COVID-19 Related WARN Case 

If you’ve had occasion to converse with a management-side employment lawyer (and somehow survived it), it seems the edict of documenting performance issues is tattooed on his/her forehead. I must confess in my own supervisor training I have warned that, in essence, “if it’s not in writing, it did not happen” (at least for purposes of trying to get a case dismissed on a motion for summary judgment). I still believe that documentation is always the safest course, but can an employer still fire an employee for a series of undocumented incidents and avoid having to go to trial when the employee disputes them? The Seventh Circuit has answered this question in the affirmative.

Read More >> The Sound of Silence: Seventh Circuit Holds That Undocumented Misconduct is Still Misconduct