Source: http://www.cuthbertsonlaw.com/general_law_blog?page=2
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:36:13+00:00

Document:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that every employer, employment organization, and labor organization to post notices describing the right to be free of workplace discrimination and harassment. These notices must be prominently placed in accessible areas where other notices to employees, applications, and union members are typically maintained. On June 1, 2016, EEOC raised the penalty for violating the notice provision from $210 to $525 per violation.
Under the Affordable Care Act, employers received new incentives to offer wellness programs to their employees. Wellness programs, such as reimbursing gym memberships or incentivizing smoking cessation programs, keep employees healthy, reducing medical costs, absenteeism, and health-related productivity losses to the benefit of both employer and employee. On May 17, 2016, EEOC issued new regulations (“Final Rule”) on how wellness programs must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA). The Final Rule is effective immediately, but employers have until the first day of an employer’s plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2017 to comply with the amended notice and incentive provisions.
(1) Wellness programs must be “reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.” For example, health screenings must provide results, follow-up information or health advice. Participants may not be penalized solely for failing to meet a particular health outcome.
(3) Incentives (rewards or penalties) cannot exceed 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage (including both employer and employee contributions). The Final Rule explains how this 30% calculation is to be made.
Furthermore, prior to requiring an employee undergo a medical examination or fill out a medical form, the employer must give notice as to the type of medical information to be obtained, the purpose for such information, restrictions on its disclosure, and methods being used to prevent improper disclosure.
Finally, the Final Rule reiterates existing confidentiality protections, including that except when necessary for program administration, employee medical information or history may be provided to an employer in aggregate form only in a manner that does not disclose, or is not reasonably likely to disclose, the identity of any employee, and that an employer may not compel employees to waive ADA confidentiality protections.
Our next post on this matter will look at the regulations governing wellness programs as they relate to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”).
On June 9, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that noncompliance with the RPTL § 708(3), which requires a taxpayer filing a tax certiorari petition serve notice to any affected school district within 10 days of serving the municipal assessment authority, cannot be corrected through the extension of time to recommence provided by CPLR § 205(a) absent good cause for the failure to serve.
The case arose when Westchester Joint Water Works (“Taxpayer”), owner of a water supply and pipe system in the City of Rye (“City”), challenged its tax assessments for 2002 through 2010 by commencing nine tax certiorari proceedings against the City Assessor (“Assessor”). Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 708(3), the Taxpayer is required to serve the municipality and the superintendent of any school district where a portion of the real property whose assessment is at issue is. Here, the Taxpayer served the municipality, but mistakenly served only one of the two school districts.
After serving late notice to the second school district (“School”), the School intervened and moved to dismiss the proceeding. The City also moved to dismiss. The Taxpayer requested leave to recommence the proceeding under CPLR § 205, which provides a six-month grace period to recommence an action despite the statute of limitations for actions dismissed on grounds other than the merits. The trial court dismissed the petition as to that parcel for the School, but held the City lacked standing to move for dismissal City as it was properly served. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department upheld the School’s dismissal, while reversing with respect to the City, against whom the proceeding was almost dismissed. This was affirmed on intermediate appeal.
When the issue reached the Court of Appeals, the Court unanimously held that noncompliance with the RPTL § 708(3) cannot be corrected through the extension of time to recommence provided by CPLR § 205(a). In so holding, the Court noted the legislative history of concern that school districts receiving notice, as well as the amendments creating the 10-day service window and requirement that failure to serve notice “shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless excused for good cause shown.” Reading this provision together with CPLR § 205(a), the Court found RPTL § 708(3)’s express language addressing dismissal precluded using the more general CPLR provision. The Court also noted that the lower court’s did not find good cause for Taxpayer’s failure to serve the School notice.
Finally, the Court discussed the policy underlying the provision, emphasizing the importance of allowing school districts the opportunity to intervene in tax certiorari cases. Specifically, the Court noted that in the event that the school has to satisfy a judgment awarded to a taxpayer, which can be quite substantial, the outcome of the proceeding could create a budget deficit or other fiscal problems for the school.
In conclusion, school districts involved in tax certiorari proceedings should be acutely aware of whether timely notice has been received. If not, the courts will now be required to dismiss the proceeding if there was no good cause for the failure to serve notice.
The case was Westchester Joint Water Works v. Assessor of City of Rye, No. 77, 2016 WL 3189055 (N.Y. June 9, 2016).
On April 4, 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an amendment to the New York State Workers’ Compensation Law that will significantly benefit workers in two ways: (1) raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and (2) provide workers with paid family leave, effective January 1, 2018. This is the second post on the amendment, and will discuss paid family leave.
The other significant change is that effective January 1, 2018, employees who have worked for at least 26 weeks for a covered employer will become eligible for up to eight weeks of paid family leave at 50% of their salary. This requirement will continue to phase in over the next three years, ultimately reaching twelve weeks of paid leave at 67% pay in 2021.
For purposes of coverage, a covered employer is any employer covered by the Disability Law, i.e. all employers that have one or more employees at least 30 days in any calendar year. The State, public authorities, municipalities, and other government agencies may also elect to be a covered employer solely for the purpose of family leave benefits, provided employees are given at least 90-days’ notice. Finally, unions may opt in on behalf of their members.
The law provides three situations where an employee may take paid family leave: (1) to physically or psychologically care for a family member suffering from a serious health condition, (2) to bond with a child during the first twelve months after birth or, in the case of adoption or foster care, placement with the employee, and (3) due to a “qualified exigency” under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) due to a spouse, child, or parent on active duty in the United States armed forces.
Fortunately for employers, paid family leave will be paid through employee contributions, with the maximum contribution set by the Superintendent of Financial Services (estimated at $4 to $5 a month). Employers may also obtain family leave coverage through their disability coverage provider, which is mandated by New York State Disability Law to offer both family leave and disability benefit coverage.
On April 4, 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the 2016-2017 budget. As part of this agreement, New York will gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and provide workers with 12 weeks of paid family leave effective January 1, 2018.
The “Fight for Fifteen” has been a prominent movement in New York, starting first with the fast food industry in New York City and spreading to calls for a statewide minimum wage of $15. Under this budget agreement, that will become a reality for all of New York’s employees, beginning as early as December 31, 2018.
While the budget agreement envisions a $15 minimum wage, the law uses several different schedules for minimum wage increases to accommodate the needs of both small and large employers, and to account for the disparities between New York City, Long Island, and upstate New York State. The fastest increase is for New York City employers with 11 or more employees, who will be required to pay at least $15 an hour on December 31, 2018. In contrast, NYC employers with 10 or less employees have until December 31, 2019, with correspondingly smaller increases in the intervening years. For Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties, the minimum wage for all employees will be $10 an hour on December 31, 2016, and rise by $1 every year until reaching $15 an hour on December 31, 2021.
The slowest schedule applies to upstate New York. These counties will see the minimum wage rise to $12.50 an hour by 2020, with annual increases thereafter determined by the Director of the Division of Budget and Department of Labor until the minimum wage reaches $15 an hour. In addition, starting in 2019 the State will conduct annual region-by-region analyses of the economy and the impact of the minimum wage increases, with the option of temporarily suspending scheduled increases if necessary. Finally, these increases may also be preempted by any changes in the federal minimum wage.
Employers should note that the applicable minimum wage is based on where the work occurs, not where the employer is headquartered. In addition, not-for-profits and other non-corporate employers are subject to the same requirements as for-profit enterprises. Overall, this will impact 2.3 million workers statewide, and your business should start planning now for the costs this will entail.
Whether a banquet for two hundred people or simply a take-out delivery, service charges have become a common part of food bills. Yet contrary to common belief, such charges are often not tips for servers, but fees kept in whole or part by an employer. However, lawsuits by employees alleging service charges were actually gratuities owed to them have risen dramatically since a 2008 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals. For employers unfamiliar with the changes that followed, or who continue to use old forms, this can prove to be very costly.
New York Labor Law § 190-d provides that “No employer... shall... retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purposed to be a gratuity for an employee.” In the seminal case of Samiento v. World Yacht Inc., 10 N.Y. 3d 70 (2008), the NY Court of Appeals found that services charges and automatic gratuities added to meal and banquet bills were charges “purported to be gratuities,” because the reasonable patron would understand the charge to be collected in lieu of a gratuity. Thereafter, the new standard was codified by the NY Department of Labor in the Hospitality Wage Order (“Wage Order”) in 2011.
The Wage Order creates a rebuttable presumption that any charges not for food, beverages, etc. is a gratuity. It further provides that such charges “must be distributed in full as gratuities to the service employees or food service workers who provided the service.” However, employers may still charge and retain an “administrative fee,” provided the fee is clearly identified and states what percentage, if any, goes to the staff. However, the employer bears the burden of proving the fee falls within the exception and is not what a reasonable person would consider a gratuity.
The stakes in service charge cases can be extremely high. Many unpaid gratuities claims are litigated as class action suits, and employers may be liable for the full amount of any service charges collected over a period of several years, plus attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest, and liquidated damages, potentially doubling the amount already owed. One high-end establishment, Thomas Keller’s Per Se, recently settled a case for $500,000. Now Donald Trump’s “Trump SoHo” hotel now faces a similar lawsuit, as do well-known venues such as Madison Square Garden and Yankee Stadium. Big or small, potential service charge lawsuits are something of which all hospitality employers should be aware.

References: § 708
 § 205
 § 708
 § 205
 § 708
 § 205
 § 205
 § 708
 v. 
 § 190
 v.