315-471-0405
Architectural Columns

Category Archives: Workplace Rights

Vote on Nov. 8! Paid Voting Leave in NY!

October 27th, 2022 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , ,

Voting Box

If you are a New York Worker, you may be entitled to paid voting leave on November 8.  In New York, if you don’t have four consecutive hours while the polls are open, then you are entitled to up to 2 hours of paid leave to go vote.

Polls are open from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm. Here’s how it works:

  1. If your shift begins before 10:00 am and ends after 5:00 pm, you don’t have four consecutive hours to get to the polls. That means you are entitled to up to two hours of paid leave to vote.
  2. You must give your employer 2-10 working days’ notice of your intention to take paid time off. “Working day” means a day that your employer is open for business.  Don’t give fewer than 2 day’s notice, and don’t give more than 10.
  3. The employer is allowed to require that voting leave must occur at the beginning or end of your shift.
  4. Your employer may not require you to use earned leave (such as vacation, PTO, etc.) as your voting leave.

Please note:  If your shift begins after 10:00 am or ends before 5:00 pm, then you have four consecutive hours in which to get to the polls, and you are not entitled to paid voting leave. 

The New York State Board of Elections has a handy FAQ available for details.  If you feel that your employer is violating this law, you can contact the New York State Division of Labor Standards (888-4-NSYDOL) or the New York State Attorney General’s Office Labor Bureau (212-416-8700).

Still have questions about New York paid voting leave? Contact a workplace attorney near you!

$3000 Bonuses for New York Health Care Workers

October 13th, 2022 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , ,

This year the New York State legislature voted to provide up to $3000 bonuses to New York health care workers. Eligible [“qualifying”] workers are front line health care and mental hygiene practitioners, technicians, assistants and aides who make $125,000 or less annually. They must work for a qualified employer, e.g., a provider, facility, pharmacy, or school health center licensed under the New York State Public Health Law. The bonuses are W-2 wages for federal tax purposes, but they will not be taxed by the state.

If you are a qualifying health care worker, you can get a bonus if you work the requisite number of hours during designated six month periods between October 2021 and May 2024.  Bonus amounts range from $500 to a maximum of $3,000 depending on how many hours you worked. You can only get a bonus for two 6-month time periods per employer, and you max out at $3,000.

Qualifying employers are required to claim the bonuses on behalf of their workers.  The employer will require you to sign an attestation of eligibility. Once the employer has the money, they have 30 days to pay you. They are not allowed to use the bonus to offset your regular wages.

See the New York State Department of Health’s guidance for more detailed information on these bonuses.  If you are a qualifying employee and you have questions or concerns about how your boss is handling the bonuses, speak to your union immediately! And if you’re not unionized, contact the nearest reputable worker’s rights lawyer.

Salary History is History in New York

October 5th, 2022 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , ,

Google “salary history” and you’ll see that nobody loves the question: “What were you making in your previous position?” The good news is that a question about salary history is history in New York State. At the beginning of 2020, New York State Labor Law was amended to prohibit employers from asking the question.

Specifically, employers in New York State may not ask in any manner, during a job interview or otherwise, (viz., in writing, face-to-face, or through an agent) any information about previous compensation and benefits. If the job applicant or employee voluntarily offers the information, the employer is prohibited from relying on that information to determine whether to offer the job or what salary to offer. Current employees who are up for promotion are also protected from the salary history question, although a current employer is allowed to rely on information already in its possession.

Additionally, applicants are encouraged to contact the New York State Department of Labor’s Division of Labor Standards if they believe they have been retaliated against for refusing to provide salary history information in response to a request for it. (From a practical standpoint, if you want the job, it’s wise to have a tactful response ready for salary history inquiries. There are lots of articles online with ideas about how to navigate that situation.)

If you’re faced with a salary history conundrum, speak to an attorney in your jurisdiction to ensure you get the most up-to-date and relevant information.

There are a lot of things to be nervous about in a job application, but in the State of New York, the Salary History Question is not one of them.

Do I have to disclose an ACD on my NY job application?

September 21st, 2022 by Susan McNeil

Posted in Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , ,

Earlier this year a client asked me, “Do I have to disclose an ACD on my New York job application?” The client was looking for a new job after having been arrested. Understandably, he had a lot of questions about how the arrest and possible conviction were going to impact his future job prospects. Long story short, the criminal matter (for which I did not provide representation, as I am not a criminal defense specialist), was resolved with an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal [“ACD”] – which provides for a full dismissal of the charges following a period of time, usually six months, as long as the defendant does not get arrested again during the adjournment period.

The client then posed the question: “Do I have to disclose the ACD on my job application?”

Excellent question.

Here’s how an ACD is treated in New York State in the context of finding a job. [Please note that New York City has different rules. Call an attorney if you’re not sure how to respond to employment questions about arrests!]

New York Executive Law §296.16 was amended in 2019 to provide that job applicants are not required to disclose information about an arrest that was followed by an ACD. However, an ACD is likely to show up on a pre-employment background check until the terms have been satisfied. If the applicant has exercised their right not to disclose, a prospective employer may assume the applicant is being dishonest and trying to cover up the arrest. Luckily, the New York law prohibits employers from taking an adverse action because of an ACD. Unluckily, employers may not be aware of this prohibition.

In this catch-22 situation, it is a very good idea to contact the New York State Division of Human rights, or a New York workers’ rights attorney, or both. After we talked, my client knew his rights as he went through the application process. I am happy to report that he got the job.

Always contact a workers’ rights attorney in your jurisdiction if you are concerned about how an arrest might affect your employment.

New York Law Restricts Employer E-Spying

March 14th, 2022 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

surveillance camera

New York State recently passed a law requiring employers to give notice to employees if they monitor employees’ telephone, email, and internet activity.

 

Section 52-c of the New York Civil Rights Act requires employers to provide written notice of e-monitoring individually to new employees.  If the employee doesn’t sign an acknowledgement of the notice, the notice is invalid.  Further, the notice must inform the employee of monitoring of telephone, email, internet, or use of any electronic device (including computer, telephone, wire, radio or fax). Notice must also be posted in a conspicuous spot in the workplace.

 

The employer does not have to inform employees about computer system maintenance and protection such as spam filters and volume controls.

 

Realistically speaking, this means an extra form for New York employees to sign during the hiring process.  If a new hire refuses to sign, in all probability the employer could refuse to keep the person on the job.  Additionally, there is no private right of action, meaning employees can’t individually sue employers for violations of this law.  But employees can report employers to the New York State Attorney General, who can impose monetary penalties. Repeat offenders will be assessed increasingly stiff penalties.

 

The law goes into effect on May 7, 2022.  If you are concerned about how your employer is monitoring you, it’s not a bad idea to call the attorney general or speak with a workers’ rights attorney in your jurisdiction.

Expanded Protection For New York Whistleblowers

December 15th, 2021 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Whistleblowers, Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 

Whistleblower law in New York was abysmal.  The only people who seemed to be protected were folks who warned the public that a nuclear power plant was about to blow up. Anything less than a “substantial and specific” public safety threat was not covered; thus, employees who reported their employers for misconduct such as cooking the books did not get job protection, even when the boss went to jail.[1]

Enter the amended NY Labor Law Section 740, which takes effect on January 1, 2022. Here’s what the amendments do:

 

  • There is no longer a requirement that the reported violation constitute a substantial specific public safety threat – although reporting such a threat is still a protected activity.
  • Employees are protected from retaliation if they report conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of a law, rule, or regulation. What constitutes a “reasonable belief” remains to be seen, so it’s wise to make sure you have a good understanding of the violation you’re reporting before making the complaint.
  • Employees must make a good faith effort to notify the employer of the violation, giving the employer the chance to fix the problem. But that notification requirement is eased in situations where there is imminent or serious danger to public safety, the employee reasonably believes that the employer would take steps to conceal the activity (such as shredding incriminating evidence), the report would result in physical harm or result in endangerment of a minor, or the employee reasonably believes that the employer is already aware of the violation and will not correct it.
  • The amendments extend the statute of limitations to two years from the date of the violation, and entitle the parties to a jury trial.
  • Particularly bad conduct can result in an award of punitive damages.
  • Employers are required to post a notice of employees’ whistleblower rights in a conspicuous spot in the workplace.

 

Fair warning:  Employees who bring frivolous claims may be ordered to pay the employer’s attorneys’ fees and costs – which often amount to six figures.  So before you file a big court claim, it’s a good idea to speak to a workers’ rights attorney in your jurisdiction.

 

 

[1] Healthcare workers had slightly better protections under NYLL 741.

Four Things To Know About Your Hairstyle At Work

December 3rd, 2021 by Susan McNeil

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Uncategorized, Workplace Rights | No Comments

Tags: , , ,

Is a workplace grooming policy cramping your style?  If you work in New York, you may have some protections: 

  • A grooming policy cannot directly target hairstyles traditionally associated with persons of color or have a disparate impact on certain races. For example, a grooming policy that limits hair length or height, thus limiting Afros, could violate the law.  
  • An employer cannot maintain a wholesale ban of particular hairstyles, such as dreadlocks, twists, braids, cornrows, Afros or fades.   
  • An employer cannot require only employees with hairstyles associated with their race to cut or conceal their hair or prevent these employees from serving in customer-facing roles.  
  • An employer cannot require employees to alter the natural state of their hair to conform to company appearance standards, for example, mandating hair straightening with chemicals or heat. 

On July 11, 2019, the definition of race under the New York State Human Rights Law [“NYSHRL”] was amended to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles,” such as braids and dreadlocks. NYSHRL §§292(37) and (38). The amendment broadens the definition of race so that an employer who makes an adverse employment decision, such as denying an individual a job or promotion, based on an individual’s hair texture or style that is associated with their racial identity, may have violated the NYSHRL.  [Note: If you work in New York City, this protection has been in place since February 2019. At that time, the New York City Commission on Human Rights [“NYCCHR”] issued guidance https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/Hair-Guidance.pdfadvising that workplace grooming or appearance policies that ban, limit, or restrict natural hairstyles associated with race, ethnicity and culture violate the City’s anti-discrimination law. As detailed in the NYCCHR guidance, the New York City provision is broader and more detailed than the state-wide amendment.]   

While the amendment acknowledges the inextricable link between hair and race it does not prevent an employer from maintaining a neutral “grooming policy” seeking to establish a workforce with a “professional” appearance. Herein lies the challenge. While a grooming policy appears to be neutral, the impact can reinforce racial stereotypes and perpetuate race discrimination. The objective of the amendment is to protect people from race discrimination hiding behind a neutral grooming policy.  

If you think your employer’s grooming policy violates the amendments, or if you think you have suffered other race-based discrimination at work, consult with a workers’ rights attorney to discuss your situation.   

 

Most New York Employers Can No Longer Drug Test Employees For Cannabis

November 5th, 2021 by Susan McNeil

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Uncategorized, Workplace Rights | No Comments

Tags: , , , , ,

Most New York Employers Can No Longer Drug Test Employees For Cannabis

On July 1, 2021, I blogged about the intersection of legalization of recreational cannabis use and an employee’s workplace rights in New York. At that time, the New York State Department of Labor [“NYS DOL”] had not yet weighed in on whether employers may continue to test employees for cannabis now that recreational use is legal in New York or addressed other issues created by cannabis legalization.  On October 8, 2021, however, NYS DOL released guidance clarifying workplace rights in the post legalization era.  Adult Use Cannabis And The Workplace – New York Labor Law 201-D (October 8, 2021).

Review of NYS DOL guidance tells us the following:

  • Drug testing for cannabis is now permitted only when federal, or state, law requires drug testing or makes it a mandatory requirement of the position. For example, when federal or state law mandates drug testing for drivers of commercial vehicles or other safety sensitive positions, cannabis drug screening, be it pre-employment, randomized, or in response to an accident or injury, is permissible.
  • To impose discipline against an employee suspected of being under the influence of cannabis at work, an employer must show that the employee manifests “specific articulable symptoms of impairment” that decrease the performance of their duties or interfere with an employer’s obligation to provide a safe workplace as required by state and federal occupational safety and health laws.

So, what exactly are “articulable symptoms of impairment?” The guidance does not provide a list of specific symptoms but explains that the symptoms must be “objectively observable indications that the employee’s performance of the duties of the position are decreased or lessened.” This appears to mean that neither a positive drug test for cannabis nor the smell of cannabis on one’s clothing can serve as the sole basis for an employer’s conclusion that an employee was impaired by marijuana at work and therefore subject to discipline.

Keep in mind that cannabis legalization does not prevent an employer from prohibiting cannabis use during “work hours,” which includes unpaid breaks and mealtimes, even if the employee leaves the worksite. Employers can also prohibit the use of cannabis during periods when an employee is “on call.” In addition, employers can also prohibit cannabis possession while at work and prohibit cannabis use, and possession, in company vehicles or on company property, even after regular business hours or shifts.  When a remote employee works from the confines of a private residence, however, an employer cannot prohibit possession of cannabis at the remote location because the term “worksite” does not include a remote employee’s private residence. N.Y. Lab L. §201-D. As such, an employer can only impose discipline of a remote employee if s/he exhibited articulable symptoms of impairment during work hours, not for possession of cannabis.

If you believe you have been improperly disciplined by your employer for legal use of cannabis, contact a workers’ rights attorney.

Paid Voting Leave

October 26th, 2021 by Susan McNeil

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Need To Take Time Off From Work To Vote on November 2, 2021? 

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021, polls in New York will be open from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm.

Employees in New York are eligible for up to two hours of paid time off to vote in certain circumstances. 

Specifically, if you don’t have “sufficient time to vote” during your workday, NYS Election law gives you up to two hours paid time off to vote. Election Law §3-110. By contrast, you are deemed to have “sufficient time to vote” if you have four consecutive hours to vote either from the opening of the polls to the beginning of your shift, or four consecutive hours between the end of your shift and the closing of the polls. Id. 

Here’s an example.  If you must work from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the election law deems you as having “sufficient time to vote” and therefore not eligible to paid voting leave.  This is because the polls are open until 9:00 pm – which is four consecutive hours after the end of your shift at 5:00 pm.  If, however, you work from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, you can get paid voting leave because the polls are open for only three consecutive hours after the end of your shift. The total amount of paid time off you are entitled to depends on several factors, including travel time from your workplace to your polling place, waiting time at your polling place, traffic, among other things. The maximum paid time off to vote is capped at two hours. 

Please note the following: 

  • You are required to give your employer at least two working days prior notice of your intention to take paid time off to vote, but not more than ten working days’ notice. The term “working days” is defined as any day that your employer is open for business. 
  • Your employer cannot require you to use personal time off or any other form of earned leave time to vote. 
  • Regardless of your vaccination status, masks are required for all individuals entering polling locations. 

If, you believe your employer is impermissibly denying you paid time off for voting, contact a workers’ rights attorney or the New York State Department of Labor.  

UPDATE:  The COVID-19 Vaccination and Your Workplace.  Know Your Rights!

October 12th, 2021 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in COVID-19 In The New York Workplace, Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article is an update of our January 27, 2021 blog post. 

As more and more employers implement mandatory vaccination policies for employees, it’s important for employees to understand why the requirement is legal, and what their options are.

Legal challenges to vaccine mandates have not, so far, been successful.  Applications for injunctive relief have been denied, and a federal court in Texas has rejected wrongful termination and public policy arguments.  New York City Municipal Labor Committee, et al. v. City of New York, et. al, Index No. 158368/2021 (New York Co. September 22, 2021); Bridges, et al v. Houston Methodist Hospital, et al., H-21-1774 (SD Tex. June 12, 2021).

This said, employees who are afflicted with disabilities that make it dangerous for them to be vaccinated, as well as employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs, may be able to seek a reasonable accommodation. Each employer has its own process for requesting those accommodations, and determining whether there is a reasonable accommodation available involves an interactive process that requires the cooperation of both employer and employee. Below, we recap several FAQs from our previous vaccination article.

Can my employer demand that I receive the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment?

Yes. Requiring the vaccine is not a medical exam, nor does it seek information about your current health status or impairments. A vaccine mandate does not in itself violate discrimination laws if the mandate allows a case-by-case assessment of whether there a reasonable accommodation could be provided for those who need it.

What if I do not want to be vaccinated because of my disability or because of my sincerely-held religious beliefs?

If your disability or religious beliefs prevent you from being vaccinated, you may request an accommodation from your employer.  When you request an accommodation, your employer needs to determine if you, as an unvaccinated employee, pose a “direct threat” to the health and safety of yourself or others, and whether the threat can be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation.

If the  assessment results in a finding of direct threat, your employer will try to determine if there is a reasonable accommodation that would allow you to continue to work. This interactive process includes getting information from you and your doctor or religious leader. It is important for employees to cooperate in the interactive process; failure to do so can result in termination. Keep in mind that your employer does not have to provide the specific accommodation that you request. Also, if your employer genuinely cannot come up with a reasonable accommodation, you may be terminated.

Can my employer ask for proof that I have received the COVID-19 vaccine?

Yes. Simply requesting proof of a COVID-19 vaccine is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, as such, is not a disability-related inquiry that would trigger ADA or other health information privacy protections. However, if you have not been vaccinated due to a medical condition, you’ll need to be prepared to request an accommodation, which will require you to provide  medical information to allow the employer to determine what kind of accommodation can be provided.

Do I have ADA protection if my employer administers the COVID-19 vaccine ? 

Yes. The pre-vaccination medical screening questions are likely to elicit information about your health. When these questions are asked by your employer (this might happen in the healthcare context), they meet the ADA definition of a “disability-related” inquiry, and, as a result, you are entitled to ADA protection. The ADA requires that the disability-related screening questions be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” If you are concerned that your employer’s mandatory vaccination program does not meet this threshold, contact an attorney for advice.

Next Entries »

217 S. Salina St., 6th Fl.,
Syracuse, NY 13202

T: 315-471-0405
F: 315-471-7849

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This site is published for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  This site neither creates nor implies an attorney-client relationship.

Find us on Mastodon: @WorkplaceLawyer@union.place