New Year, New Laws in New York

January 30, 2024

New Year, New Laws in New York


As New York and New York City ring in a new year, they also ring in a slate of new laws that take effect in 2024. First, in New York State, the Clean Slate Act takes effect as of November 16, 2024, which requires records of certain past criminal convictions to be sealed. Second, effective January 1, 2024, is the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”)’s increased salary thresholds, which offer employees additional overtime, minimum wage and wage payment protections. Third, New York’s pay transparency law, effective September 17, 2023, requires disclosure of maximum and minimum salary for in advertisements for jobs.


For New York City, the worker’s bill of rights has new notice and positing requirements that are effective March 1, 2024. Second, effective March 20, 2024, employees gain a private right of action in court for violations of New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act. These laws are described in detail below.

 

Clean Slate Act Effective November 16, 2024

 

On November 16, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul (“Hochul”) signed into law A1029C, also known as the “Clean Slate Act.” The law, becoming effective November 16th of this year, will require records of certain past criminal convictions to be sealed. Eligible misdemeanors convictions will be sealed for at least three years following release from incarceration, or in the case of no incarceration, from the imposition of a sentence for the misdemeanor. Eligible felony convictions will be sealed for at least eight years following an individual’s incarceration or imposition of a sentence. Consistent with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Clean Slate Act will require employers to provide individuals for whom background checks are conducted with 1) a copy of the individual's criminal history report, 2) a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law, and 3) notice of the right to seek correction of any erroneous information contained in the record. In contrast to the FCRA, the Clean Slate Act requires employers to provide these materials regardless of whether the employer intends to take adverse action based on criminal history. Sealed criminal convictions will generally not be accessible in a background check except where relevant and necessary (i.e. if the check is conducted when hiring individuals to work with vulnerable populations). Sealed records not provided in response to an employer’s request for criminal history may not be introduced as evidence of negligence in hiring and employers acting reasonably and in good faith may not have a duty to investigate whether convictions have been sealed under law.

 

NYSDOL Salary Threshold Effective January 1, 2024

 

On December 27, 2023, the NYSDOL adopted proposed regulations to increase the salary threshold for minimum wage and overtime exemptions under the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Effective January 1, 2024, the new salary thresholds for the executive and administrative exemptions for overtime are $1,200 per week for New York City, Westchester and Long Island and 1,124.20 per week for the rest of the state. New York does not have a professional exemption to overtime, so individuals covered by this exemption will continue to be subject to the professional exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).


Further, on September 15, 2023, Hochul signed into law S5572/A6796, amending the NYLL to increase the threshold for exemption from wage payment protections, including the method and frequency of wage payments. Effective March 13, 2024, the earning requirements for protection under the NYLL will increase to $1,300 per week, up from the current threshold of $900 per week, making more employees subject to wage payment protections under the NYLL.

 

Pay Transparency Regulations set to Publish this Year.

 

Effective September 17, 2023, employers with four or more employees became required to disclose the maximum and minimum annual salary or hourly wage ranges in advertisements for jobs, promotions and transfers(including electronic job postings). The requirements apply to jobs physically performed in the state or by out-of-state workers who report to a supervisor or office within New York state. However, NYSDOL has not issued final rules for these pay transparency regulations, and employers should be on the lookout for these rules this year.

 

New York City Workers’ Bill of Rights Imposes New Notice and Posting Requirements.

 

As of November 2023, the New York City Council passed Int. No. 569-B, amending the Administrative Code of the City of New York to require employers to distribute and post a Workers’ Bill of Rights notice in the workplace. The Bill of Rights will be published by March 1, 2024 which will 1) provide information about rights under relevant federal, state and local law that apply to employees, prospective employees or independent contractors, 2) indicate which rights apply to workers regardless of immigration status and 3) include information about the right to organize a union. By July 1, 2024, employers will be required to provide this Bill of Rights to their employees, conspicuously post the Bill and make it available to all employees online and in any language that is spoken by at least 5% of their employees.

 

New York City Employees to Gain Private Right of Action for Violations of NYC’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act.

 

On January 20, 2024, New York City enacted Int. 563-A, which provides individuals with a right to file a civil action in court for violations of New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”). Currently, individuals asserting such an action can only file with the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. Effective March 20, 2024, individuals will have two years from the date they knew or should have know of the alleged violation of the ESSTA to commence a civil action in court. The ESSTA requires employes to provide leave to employees working in New York City for the care and treatment of themselves or a family member and to seek legal and social services assistance or take other safety measures if the employee or family member may be the victim of any act or threat of domestic violence or unwanted sexual contact, stalking or human trafficking.  

 

If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

When Bias Creeps into Independent Investigations It All Becomes Tainted.

April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.