Source: http://nysbar.com/blogs/LENY/legislation/
Timestamp: 2014-07-26 05:15:56
Document Index: 43466990

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72']

Labor & Employment N.Y. ("LENY"): Legislation Archives
NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL PASSES BILL TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE
On August 17, 2011, the New York City Council unanimously passed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, Int. No. 632-A. The law seeks to amend New York City's Human Rights Law as it pertains to unlawful discriminatory practices motivated by religious animus. Pursuant to the new bill, both public and private employers will be required to foster environments that are supportive of religious practices. Democratic councilman, Mark Weprin of Queens, co-sponsored and advocated for the legislation. Weprin introduced the anti-religious discrimination legislation more than a year ago to extinguish concerns brought by Sikh constituents in his home district, particularly with respect to New York City Police Department policy prohibiting beards and requiring a hat. Under the current bill, employers must accommodate various aspects of religion including observance of religious practices, allowing traditional, religious attire in the workforce, allotting time off for observance of religious holidays, and allowing for prayer throughout the workday. The employers' burden, in order to prohibit a particular religious practice, is also heightened under the new bill. As the Human Rights Law currently reads, employers can prohibit a religious practice with a simple showing that such observance will cause an "inconvenience." The proposed legislation will raise the bar and require a showing of "undue hardship" that takes into account many factors such as financial resources, any effect the observance will have on business expenses and resources, size of the business, number of employees, and the nature of the accommodation. Violators will be subject to civil penalties ranging up to $125,000 and awards to the aggrieved employee of back pay, compensatory damages, and reinstatement. In cases of willful, wanton, and malicious discriminatory acts, violators may be subject to penalties ranging up to $250,000.
The new bill requires the signature of New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, before it becomes law. If passed, the New York City Human Rights Commission would be able to bring an enforcement action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
This post was authored by Matt Lampe, Joseph Bernasky, and Michele Bradley of Jones Day.
Posted by Matt Lampe on August 26, 2011 5:33 PM
Will New York Join the Wave of States Passing Laws Restricting Employers' Use of Applicant and Employee Credit History?
Since October 26, 1970, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("FCRA"), has imposed restrictions and disclosure requirements on employers who seek to procure and use applicant and employee credit history and other information obtained from third-party background checks. In reaction to the recent economic downturn, a number of states have imposed further restrictions and prohibitions on employer use of applicant and employee credit history in the employment context. Proponents of these new restrictions argue that in the current economic climate, in which jobs have been lost and investments have tanked, many currently unemployed but otherwise qualified applicants now have low credit scores through no fault of their own. These applicants - particularly those who have lost their jobs as a result of the economy - should not, according to proponents of the new restrictions, be further penalized by having a poor credit rating impact their chances of obtaining employment. Most recently, on October 10, 2011, California passed Assembly Bill No. 22 ("Bill 22"), amending California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"). Bill 22 outright bans California employers, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes beginning on January 1, 2012, unless one of eight narrow exceptions applies. And, even if one of the exceptions does apply, Bill 22 imposes additional disclosure requirements on the use of consumer credit reports above-and-beyond those already imposed by the FCRA. Several other states have passed similar laws, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington. In line with this recent trend, three bills have been introduced in New York that would impact New York employers' ability to request and rely on applicant and employee credit history in making employment decisions. · Assembly Bill 4052, introduced on February 1, 2011, would prohibit the use of a job applicant's or employee's personal credit history background check in the hiring or promotion process, unless such information directly relates to the position sought, and even then, the information obtained cannot be a determining factor in the decision-making process. If an employee or applicant consents to a credit history background check, he or she must sign a consent form that explicitly states the specific purpose, use and limitations on the use of the credit history background information as it pertains to the position sought. There have been no votes on this bill, but it has been referred to the committee on governmental operations.
· Assembly Bill 6672 (Senate Bill 1519), introduced on March 24, 2011, would prohibit or severely limit the ability of an employer to use a consumer credit report in making any decisions relating to hiring, promotions, discipline or terminations. An employer may request and use a consumer credit report only in two limited situations: (1) if the information is substantially related to the position, for instance if the position involves access to money, assets or confidential information; or (2) if the information is for a managerial position, a position in the office of court administration, a position with a law enforcement agency, or a position for which the information contained in such report is required to be disclosed or obtained by the employer. Before an employer may request or use a consumer credit report, the employee or prospective employee shall be given and sign an authorization of consent form that explicitly states the specific purpose, use and limitations of use of such report as it pertains to the position sought. There have been no votes on this bill, but it has been referred to the committee on consumer affairs and protection.
· Assembly Bill 8070 (Senate Bill 4905), introduced on May 27, 2011, known as the Credit Privacy in Employment Act, would prevent an employer from requesting or using information in the credit history of a job applicant or employee in connection with or as a criterion for employment decisions related to hiring, termination, promotion, demotion, discipline, compensation, or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment. An employer may use such information if required by state or federal law to use such credit history. If an employer requests a credit history for positions in which such information can be collected, the employee or applicant must sign an authorization of consent form authorizing such use. As with the other three bills, there have been no votes on it to date, but it has been referred to the committee on consumer affairs and protection.
Despite recent initiatives to restrict employer use of applicant and employee credit history - or perhaps because of them - on July 20, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed into law Assembly Bill 8159 (originally Senate Bill 3987) ("Bill 8159"). This new law amends the New York Education Law to permit background checks, including criminal background and credit checks, of employees and prospective employees of the Higher Education Services Corporation ("HESC"). HESC is the State's student financial aid agency that manages more than 18 grant, scholarship and loan programs, and offers guidance to students, families and counselors. Although at first blush it may appear that this law runs against the tide of recent legislative initiatives on employee background checks, Bill 8159 actually encompasses the type of exception seen in the recent legislation. For example, California's Bill 22 contains an exception allowing the collection of consumer credit report information when the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained. Even the proposed legislation in New York contains exceptions allowing the use of credit information when that information has a direct relationship to the position sought or is required by law. In the end, employers in New York and elsewhere should continue to monitor developments in this area to ensure that their practices are in line with the expanding patchwork of state laws on the issue.
This post was authored by Matt Lampe, Joseph Bernasky, and Emilie Hendee of Jones Day. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or the New York State Bar Association.
Posted by Matt Lampe on October 28, 2011 1:00 PM
NY Legislature Expands Ability of Municipalities To Recover Police Training Expenses
In a little-recognized effort to generate "mandate relief" associated with its recently-enacted "Tax Cap," the New York Legislature amended General Municipal Law ("GML") § 72-c to enable more municipalities to recover expenses related to the initial training of their police and peace officers in the event that such officers decide to transfer to another municipality within their first three years of service. Historically, GML § 72-c permitted only municipalities with populations of "ten thousand or less" to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred in the training of members of its police force who commenced employment with another municipality's police force within three years of graduating from the police training program (e.g., the police academy). Because police training is funded by municipal tax dollars, GML § 72-c originally served to protect small municipalities against the debilitating financial losses associated with the departure of their newly-hired and trained police officers for larger, more lucrative and/or more desirable jobs. Without the protections of GML § 72-c, these small municipalities would never see the benefit of the costly training they had provided to the departing officers.
In light of the ongoing financial hardships currently faced by all municipalities across New York, effective June 24, 2011, the Legislature eliminated the requirement from GML § 72-c that the municipality which provided the police training "hav[e] a population of ten thousand or less" to be eligible to seek reimbursement. According to the legislation (Laws of 2011, Ch. 97, Pt. C, Subpt. C, Sec. 1), if a police or peace officer commences employment with another police department within three years of graduating from police training, any municipality, regardless of size, can recover training expenses from the officer's new employer. The amount that a municipality may recover includes: "... salary, tuition, enrollment fees, books, and the cost of transportation to and from training school ...." The formula for calculating the recoverable amount reimburses the prior municipal employer on a pro rata basis. Simply put, the new municipal employer must pay the officer's prior municipal employer the per diem cost of training expenses for each day from the officer's last day of service with the original employer until he/she would have worked for three years.
GML § 72-c, as amended, will provide many municipalities - especially those with large police departments that have historically served as "feeder" organizations for other police departments around the State - with a new means of recovering some of the lost costs it once incurred. In these turbulent economic times, these recovered costs could help financially-strapped municipal budgets. Whether it actually provides significant "mandate relief" for municipalities, or it simply results in new forms of litigation, is yet to be determined.
This post was authored by Christopher T. Kurtz of Bond, Schoeneck, & King, PLLC.
Posted by Christopher T. Kurtz, Esq. on December 9, 2011 11:45 AM
Effective November 6, 2012, amendments to the New York Labor Law Section 193 ("Section 193") authorize a host of new permissible wage deductions from employee paychecks. Bill A10875-2011 passed the New York State Legislature on June 21, 2012, and was signed into law by Governor Cuomo on September 7, 2012. Governor Cuomo's "Statement in Support" of the bill noted that employers' inability to make deductions for valuable services provided to employees is "disadvantageous to both employers and employees." Since 1966, New York employers have been prohibited from making any deductions from employee paychecks, subject to a limited number of exceptions. The recent amendments are a welcome change for New York employers, as state courts and the New York Department of Labor ("NYDOL") Opinion Letters have consistently taken a narrow approach to the deductions enumerated in Section 193. Prior to the new amendments, New York law permitted deductions under only two circumstances: (1) as otherwise authorized by law (e.g., tax withholdings or Medicare contributions); and (2) the narrow, statutorily enumerated deductions in Section 193 (e.g., charitable organizations, labor organization dues, insurance premiums, and retirement contributions).
The newly permissible deductions are numerous and include, but are not limited to, the following: parking passes or mass transit vouchers; gym membership dues; certain purchases made by the employee, such as cafeteria or vending machine purchases at the employer's place of business; tuition, room and board fees; and day care expenses. Additionally, the new amendments allow employers to make deductions to recover an overpayment of wages that is due to mathematical or other clerical errors, and to recoup salary or wage advances. Wage deductions related to overpayments and repayments of wages must comply with additional regulations promulgated by the NYDOL (addressing, e.g., the timing, frequency, duration, method of recovery, heightened notice requirements, and implementation of an employee-dispute system). New York employers should carefully review the new law as there are several notice requirements that must be fulfilled prior to making any deductions from employee wages. For example, employers must provide employees with written notice of the terms and conditions of the payments and benefits, and other relevant details pertaining to how deductions will be taken. Also, employees must provide their employer with a voluntary, written authorization, which may be freely revoked. These written authorizations must be kept on the employer's premises throughout the employment relationship, and for an additional six years following conclusion of the relationship. Employees can also authorize wage deductions through a collective bargaining agreement. Notably, if no further legislative action is taken, these amendments to the law will expire on November 6, 2015. As additional requirements may be promulgated from time to time by the NYDOL, employers should continue to closely monitor the legislation's post-enactment activity. This post was authored by Matt Lampe, Emilie Hendee, and Michele Bradley of Jones Day. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or the New York State Bar Association.
Posted by Matt Lampe on November 8, 2012 10:56 AM
This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Labor & Employment N.Y. ("LENY") in the Legislation category. They are listed from oldest to newest. Labor Relations Law and Procedure is the previous category.
Mediation & Arbitration is the next category.