On October 23, 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that amends the Clean Indoor Air Act to ban the use of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”) everywhere that smoking traditional tobacco products is prohibited. With this amendment, the Clean Indoor Air Act will prohibit both smoking and vaping in certain indoor areas, including places of employment, as well as certain outdoor areas accessible to the public. This legislation will become effective on November 22, 2017. Prior to this date, any required posters and signs will need to be updated to include reference to “No Vaping” or “Vaping” along with the “No Smoking” or “Smoking” signs, or international “No Smoking” symbol.
On September 13, 2017, California legislators passed California Bill AB 450, also known as the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (“the Act”). The Act is one of three immigration bills currently awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s approval or veto.
The Act imposes specific restrictions on employers in instances where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents seek access to their workplaces for immigration enforcement. Specifically, the Act prohibits employers from (1) voluntarily consenting to allow an ICE agent to enter nonpublic areas of the workplace absent a judicial warrant; and (2) voluntarily consenting to allow an ICE agent to access, review, or obtain employee records, absent a subpoena or a court order.
Additionally, the Act requires employers to (1) post written notice of an immigration agency’s intent to audit employee records, including I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms, within 72 hours of the employer receiving notice of such an inspection; and (2) following an immigration agency’s audit, provide each employee who was found to lack work authorization with a copy of the written results of the inspection within 72 hours of the employer’s receipt.
Violations of the Act may result in a civil penalty of between two thousand dollars ($2,000) and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and between five thousand dollars ($5,000) and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation, to be enforced by the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General. All penalties recovered under the Act shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
At this time, the ultimate constitutionality of the Act is uncertain under Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), in view of the steep monetary penalties it threatens to impose.
 California legislators also recently passed the California Values Act (which is intended to prevent law enforcement officials from questioning and detaining individuals based on immigration violations alone) and the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act (which prohibits landlords from reporting or threatening to report the immigration status of their tenants as a form of retaliation or to prompt an eviction.)
 No later than July 1, 2018, the Labor Commissioner will release a template to assist employers in complying with the notice posting requirements imposed by the Act.
On July 19, 2017, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB” or the “Board”) issued its final regulations (“Final Regulations”) for the New York State Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (“PFLBL” or the “Law”). The WCB first published regulations to the PFLBL in February 2017, and then updated those regulations in May (collectively, the “Prior Regulations”).
While the Final Regulations did clarify some outstanding questions, many questions remain, particularly pertaining to the practical logistics of implementing the Law, such as the tax treatment of deductions and benefits, paystub requirements, certain differences between requirements that pertain to self-funding employers and those employers intending to obtain an insurance policy, and what forms and procedures will apply.
As we previously reported, when the PFLBL becomes effective on January 1, 2018, most employees working in New York State will be eligible for paid family leave (“PFL”) benefits. Employers are not responsible for actually providing pay to employees during a period of PFL; rather, employee payroll deductions will fund an insurance policy, which will either be managed by a third party or self-funded by the employer, from which employees will receive PFLBL benefits.
On the same day the Final Regulations were published, the WCB also issued an Assessment of Public Comment (the “Assessment”), which addresses certain public comments to the Prior Regulations. The State has also published two fact sheets – one for employees and one for employers – outlining the basic elements of the PFLBL.
The following summary addresses the updates in the Final Regulations, as compared to the Prior Regulations, as well as some additional insight from the Assessment.
Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Final Regulations clarified that employers that have employees or classes of employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) are not required to supply such employees with PFL coverage in accordance with the terms of the Law, but only so long as the CBA:
- provides paid family leave benefits at least as favorable as those provided in the Law; and
- does not include a provision whereby otherwise-eligible employees may waive their rights to paid family leave or otherwise opt-out of the law (except in accordance with the opt-out provisions in the Law for employees who will not become eligible for PFL).
The Final Regulations specify that, except as noted above, a CBA may, indeed, contain paid family leave provisions that differ from the requirements in the Final Regulations. Where a CBA does not provide a different rule, however, the Final Regulations and the Law will govern.
Employee Contributions. The WCB declined to amend the Final Regulations with respect to whether employers must begin employee payroll deductions prior to January 1, 2018. In the Assessment, the Board confirmed that deductions under the Law were permitted to begin on July 1, 2017, but there is no requirement to make deductions prior to January 1, 2018; thus, in 2017, payroll deductions for employee contributions is a permissive choice that employers may make.
Further, the Assessment noted that the Law does not require notification that deductions will begin; however, it is generally best practice to notify employees prior to deducting from employees’ wages. Neither the Assessment nor the Final Regulations address whether as of January 1, 2018, an employer may opt to pay the contributions on its employees’ behalf, or whether alternatively, employers must deduct from employee’s paychecks for this contribution.
Interaction Between Qualifying Leave and Benefits in 2017 and 2018. The Board received a comment asking whether an employee who took leave to bond with his or her child in 2017 will still be eligible for up to the full 8 weeks of PFL in 2018, notwithstanding the leave already taken. The Board stated in the Assessment that employees will, indeed, be eligible for up to 8 additional weeks of leave in 2018 under NYPFLBL, even if the employee exhausted all applicable leave under federal law and the employer’s policies in 2017.
The Law limits the use of PFL and New York State short-term disability benefits (“STD”) in a 52-week period to a total of 26 weeks, which essentially reduces an employee’s eligible for STD based on the amount of PFL used. On the positive side, the Assessment noted that in 2018, the 52-week lookback period includes leave taken in 2017. Thus, an employee who has utilized STD in 2017 will have his or her 26-week allocation during the applicable 52-week period reduced by any STD utilized during 2017 (so long as it was used within the applicable 52-week look-back period).
Waivers of PFL. The Final Regulations revised employers’ requirements to offer a waiver from PFL deductions from permissive to mandatory. The language previously stated that employees who do not meet the PFLBL eligibility requirements “may” be provided the option for a waiver – the “may” has been changed to “shall.” The Assessment clarified that it is the employee’s choice of whether to complete a waiver, not the employer’s.
Coverage Outside New York. The Assessment confirmed that the PFLBL applies to employees who work in New York State. If an employee works outside of New York State, and only “incidentally” works in New York, those employees are not covered by the Law.
Calculation of Daily Benefits. The Final Regulations amended the calculation of benefits when an employee is taking PFL in daily increments (rather than weekly increments). Under the Prior Regulations, if an employee worked a partial week prior to beginning PFL, then, in calculating the level of benefits to which the employee would be eligible for the day(s) off based on the eight weeks prior to taking leave, the employee’s weekly rate could be reduced by the day(s) the employee did not work in that final week. For example, the 8 week period could include a partial week of work, thus reducing the employee’s average wages. The Final Regulations use the same 8-week period as calculating an average weekly wage, which will exclude the final partial week of leave.
Positions with Breaks in Service – Impact on Eligibility. The Final Regulations added a paragraph to the “Eligibility” section, so as to clarify how to calculate consecutive weeks of service for positions that inherently contemplate breaks in service, such as professors who have semester breaks. For such positions, the 26-consecutive week period requirement may be tolled during periods of absence that are due to the nature of that employment. In other words, with respect to such individuals’ employment, the breaks in service would not be considered weeks worked when considering whether the individual had worked at least 26 weeks in the prior 52-week period (for eligibility purposes), but also would not re-start the period of employment to determine eligibility under the Law.
Returning Surplus Contributions. The Board received two comments seeking clarification regarding the requirement to return surplus contributions. The Final Regulations provide that employers shall use the employee contributions to provide PFL benefits, which “means to pay for a policy or self-insure.” The Assessment states that employers are required to return to employees any “surplus amount withheld that exceeds the actual cost” of the annual premium of the PFL policy. No changes were made to the Final Regulations.
Interaction with New York City Earned Sick Time Act (“ESTA”). The Assessment confirms the language in the Prior Regulations that employees may elect to use paid time off (such as vacation, personal days, or sick time) to receive full salary during PFL, but that it is not mandatory. As the PFLBL does not cover an employee’s own illness, PFL would only run concurrently with sick leave under ESTA for purposes of caring for an employee’s family member.
For a summary of the PFLBL, the Final Regulations, and the Assessment, please see this Act Now Advisory.
 While the Law, Final Regulations, and Assessment do not define “incidentally,” the New York State PFLBL website indicates that employees must work 30 or more days in a calendar year New York to be covered.
When: Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019
Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:
- Global Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Internal Cyber Threats
- Pay Equity
- People Analytics in Hiring
- Gig Economy
- Wage and Hour
- Paid and Unpaid Leave
- Trade Secret Misappropriation
We will start the day with two morning Plenary Sessions. The first session is kicked off with Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
We are thrilled to welcome back speakers from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc Freedman and Katie Mahoney will speak on the latest policy developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide during the second plenary session.
Morning and afternoon breakout workshop sessions are being led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, will be making remarks in the afternoon before attendees break into their afternoon workshops. We are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Bret Baier, Chief Political Anchor of FOX News Channel and Anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier.
On July 21, 2017, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to prohibit employers from requesting salary history information from prospective employees. The legislation had passed easily though the State’s Democratically controlled Senate and Assembly, with votes along party lines. With the upcoming gubernatorial election in November, employers may expect to see the bill revived and quite possibly enacted – particularly if the next governor is a Democrat. The proposed amendment may be read here.
Following is an excerpt:
When an employer pays the minimum wage (or more) instead of taking the tip credit, who owns any tips – the employer or the employee? In Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc., No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held they belong to the employer, who presumably can then either keep them or distribute them in whole or part to employees as it sees fit. This directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last year in Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 1086-89 (9th Cir. 2016), pet for cert. filed, No. 16-920 (Jan. 19, 2017) and likely sets up a showdown this fall in the U.S. Supreme Court. …
On May 15th, the Freelance Isn’t Free Act (“FIFA”) went into effect in New York City. The Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”) recently issued guidelines to help employers comply with the law.
Coverage and Immigration Status
FIFA protects all freelance workers regardless of their immigration status.
Contract Value Threshold
As previously explained, FIFA requires parties that retain freelance workers to provide any service where the contract between them has a value of $800 or more to reduce their agreement to a written contract. Under the DCA guidelines, the value of the contract includes “the reasonable value of all actual or anticipated services, costs for supplies, and any other expenses under the contract.”
FIFA prohibits hiring parties from retaliating against a freelance worker who exercises his/her rights under FIFA. Under the DCA guidelines, retaliation includes, but is not limited to, any adverse action related to perceived or actual immigration status or work authorization. In order to prove retaliation, a freelance worker can provide circumstantial or actual evidence of the hiring party’s adverse action. Any hiring party who denies a work opportunity to a freelance worker covered under FIFA is liable of retaliation regardless of whether a contract exists between them.
Waiver of Rights
All waivers or limitation for a freelance worker to participate or receive money in a judicial action are invalid as a matter of law under FIFA.
Employers should ensure that contracts entered into with freelance workers (or existing contracts that are renewed) with a value of $800 or more comply with FIFA and the published DCA rules.
This post was written with assistance from Corben J. Green, a 2017 Summer Associate at Epstein Becker Green.
This issue of Take 5 encapsulates the incredible breadth of societal changes and challenges facing the entire retail workplace. The topics addressed below reflect a microcosm of the many issues currently facing our overall society, covering growing political activism in the workplace, increasing expectations to accommodate religious beliefs, otherwise outrageous employee speech that may very well enjoy protection under the law, and the ever-increasing requirements for criminal background checks enacted piecemeal by states and cities. These extremely topical subjects often tap into broader emotionally charged concerns encountered by retailers.
We also address the ever-timely issue of wage and hour classification, in this case, focusing on the classification of assistant store managers.
The articles in this Take 5 include:
- Managing Employees’ Political and Social Activism in the Workplace
- Religious Accommodation: Handling Unusual Requests
- Second Circuit Agrees with NLRB That Employee’s Vulgar Facebook Tirade Against Manager Is Protected Concerted Activity
- Increasing Criminal Background Check Requirements Pose Challenges for National Retailers
- Correctly Classifying Assistant Store Managers to Avoid Wage and Hour Misclassification Claims
Featured on Employment Law This Week – New York City has enacted “fair workweek” legislation.
Mayor Bill de Blasio has signed a package of bills into law limiting scheduling flexibility for fast-food and retail employers. New York City is the third major city in the United States, after San Francisco and Seattle, to enact this kind of legislation. The bills require fast-food employers to provide new hires with good-faith estimates of the number of hours that they will work per week and to pay workers a premium for scheduling changes made less than 14 days in advance.
Watch the segment below, featuring our colleague Jeffrey Landes from Epstein Becker Green. Also see our colleague John O’Connor’s recent post, “New York City Tells Fast Food Employees: ‘You Deserve a Break Today’ by Enacting New Fair Workweek Laws,” on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law blog.
On May 24, 2017, the New York City Council signed a bill banning retail employers in New York City from utilizing “on-call scheduling.” Given the unpredictable fluctuations in customer flow associated with retail business operations, retail employers have historically utilized “on-call” schedules in an effort to manage labor costs associated with running their businesses. Rather than provide employees with fixed work schedules, many retail employers place employees “on-call,” requiring them to call in shortly before their work shift is to start to ascertain if they need to actually report to work. The conflicting interests between retail employers and their employees posed by “on call” scheduling is obvious. Retail employers favor the use of “on-call’ scheduling because it enables them to tailor their workforce to customer needs and avoid excessive labor costs. Employees disfavor “on-call” scheduling for a variety of reasons. First, they are not able to accurately predict their income because they are uncertain as to the number of hours they will actually work each week. Second, the lack of rigid work schedule impacts their ability to plan their day-to-day life. Because they are not certain when they will be required to work, their ability to schedule appointments, attend regular school obligations, or hold a second employment position are impaired.
In January 2015, San Francisco became the first city to pass predictive scheduling legislation, requiring retail employers in that City to pay employees for cancelled on-call shifts and provide notice to their employees of their biweekly schedules. In September 2016, Seattle followed suit, enacting legislation mirroring that in San Francisco. Similar predictive scheduling legislation is presently pending at the federal level as well as in no less than twelve states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island). By adopting this new law banning on-call scheduling, New York City becomes the most recent jurisdiction to seek to protect retail employees’ interests despite the increased operating costs such predictive scheduling legislation may impose on retail employers
Pursuant to the new law, retail employers in New York City now have to post employees’ work schedules at least 72 hours before the beginning of the scheduled hours of work. The law also precludes retail employers from cancelling, changing or adding work shifts within 72 hours of the start of the shift (except in limited cases). Moreover, each retail employee must be scheduled for no less than 20 hours of work during each 14-day period. In a press release in which he praised the New York City Council for passing the bill and in which he expressed his intent to immediately sign the law, Mayor de Blasio claimed that the law “will ensure that workers will be able to budget for the week ahead, schedule childcare, and plan evening classes.” While the law is clearly intended to help retail employees better balance their professional and personal lives, the strict scheduling requirements will challenge New York City’s retail employers to develop new means of managing their businesses impacted by the unpredictability posed by seasonal demand, customer fluctuation, weather, holidays, employee turnover issues, and other variations in day-to-day retail operations.