315-471-0405
Architectural Columns

Tag Archives: employment attorney near me

It’s (Probably) Not Wrongful Termination If You’re Not Terminated.

February 18th, 2025 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Employment and Labor Attorney, New York, NY., Syracuse, Workplace Rights, Wrongful Termination |

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A promotional image for a new blog post features a man in a suit holding a cardboard box filled with office supplies, including binders, folders, and notebooks. The text overlay reads: 'NEW BLOG POST' in large, bold black letters. Above this, within a speech bubble-like shape, the text says: 'It's (Probably) Not Wrongful Termination If You're Not Terminated.' At the bottom, the website URL www.satterlaw.com/blog is displayed.

 

Employees who feel they are about to be fired for illegal reasons sometimes choose to quit, thinking it will spare them the embarrassment of being terminated. In other cases, employers might try to avoid firing an employee by making the workplace so hostile that the employee feels forced to resign.

What many employees don’t realize is that quitting can cost them the opportunity to file a wrongful termination case against their employer. To pursue a wrongful termination claim, you must prove that you were actually terminated.

In New York State, a wrongful termination claim requires the employee to demonstrate the following:

  1. They are part of a recognized protected class.
  2. They were qualified for the position in question.
  3. They were discharged.
  4. Their discharge occurred under circumstances that suggest the motivation for the termination was prohibited by law.

However, if you voluntarily quit your job, you may lose your ability to pursue a wrongful termination claim. That’s because you can no longer demonstrate that you were discharged, which is a necessary element of the claim. In most cases, if you’re not terminated, you cannot claim wrongful termination.

Additionally, only a small percentage of individuals who quit their jobs will meet the requirements to successfully bring a constructive discharge lawsuit. Proving a constructive discharge case is difficult, and it’s often challenging to demonstrate that the work environment was so intolerable that resignation was the only option.

If you feel that your employer is about to illegally fire you, or if you’re dealing with a hostile work environment, it’s crucial to consult an employment attorney before you make any decision, especially before quitting. Quitting could significantly impact your legal rights.

 

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, and INCLUSION are Not Dirty Words and They’re Not Going Away

February 11th, 2025 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Employment and Labor Attorney, Equity & Inclusion, NY., Workplace Rights |

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

Graphic promoting a new blog post. The main visual element features the acronym "DEI" representing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, with each letter enclosed in a hexagon. Below each letter are corresponding icons: a globe with people for Diversity, a group of gender-diverse figures for Equity, and a collaborative group for Inclusion. The text at the bottom reads: "DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION are Not Dirty Words and They're Not Going Away". The website 'www.satterlaw.com/blog' is displayed on the left side.

 

Even before Inauguration Day 2025, corporations cravenly started rolling back their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion[1] initiatives. Then the new administration came in swinging, implementing executive orders to eliminate “illegal” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion measures.[2]  Now the new Attorney General has issued a memorandum instructing the DOJ to investigate, prosecute, and penalize “illegal” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs in the private sector.

Guidance for employers, so far, is hilariously terrible: the last sentence in all the articles is: “talk to your lawyer.” Because no one knows what these orders mean. The people writing the articles don’t know. Corp counsel doesn’t know. Not even the attorneys making up these orders know.

We don’t know either, but we can tell you one thing: As of today, February 11, 2025, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are not “illegal.” They are statutory. There are federal statutes that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, and disability. There are state statutes that prohibit other types of discrimination, for example, in New York, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of marital status.[3]

What does this mean for workers? Well, it’s going to be harder to access opportunities. Programs aimed at leveling the playing field are now being dismantled. These programs weren’t perfect, but they were helping move folks into positions that would otherwise go to privileged, wealthy twerps.

Here’s the deal: you can still fight back. It is still illegal (as of February 11, 2025) for an employer to make a decision about your employment based on your race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In the State of New York, it’s also illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of military status, familial status, marital status, status as a victim of domestic violence, arrest record, and citizenship and immigration status.[4]

Which means you can still sue their pants off if you can show they’re discriminating. And if they just rolled back a whole promotion program that was designed to help you advance on the basis of your qualifications rather than your golfing relationship with the boss, and the promotion you were after goes to a wealthy, privileged twerp, a really good way to show the corporation that discrimination is still illegal is to get a good employment lawyer to give them the message.

Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.

None of those is a bad word. Lawyer up, and let’s go.

_______________________

[1] In this article, we’re going to spell out Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion every time we mention it because we want to make it clear: people who oppose DEI are opposing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Seriously, businesses, which one of those words is an issue for you?
[2] For example, federal agencies’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246, which built anti-discrimination policies into federal contracts.
[3] Talk to an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction to find out what additional protections might be in effect in your area.
[4] Seriously, talk to an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction to see if there are non-federal protections for you in your geographical location.

Avoiding the Legal Snare: The Perils of Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs)

August 13th, 2024 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Employment and Labor Attorney, New York, Non-Compete Agreements, Syracuse, Workplace Rights |

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

 

Employers are increasingly using Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs) to replace other restrictive covenants such as noncompetes and nonsoliciation agreements. But TRAPs can be even more restrictive—and more exploitative—than noncompetes.  In this article, we’ll explain what a TRAP is and how to avoid getting caught in one.

What is a TRAP?

TRAPs, also known as Training Repayment Agreement Provisions, are contractual terms that employees sign when they are hired. While the wording may vary, a TRAP requires an employee to work for a certain period of time. If the employee separates from service prior to that timeframe (whether they quit or are fired), the employee has to pay back the employer’s training costs, the costs of buying or renting equipment, or the costs of replacing the employee.  Sometimes those fees are prorated depending on how long the employee has worked.

How TRAPs Hurt Employees

TRAPs can be very misleading. Often they don’t state how much the employee will have to pay back, or they don’t disclose interest accrual rates or other information a person would usually be entitled to when entering an agreement that might affect their credit. Sometimes the “training” that an employee is expected to pay for is just the orientation or legally-required videos. Sometimes the fees for such “training” are outrageous – we’ve seen TRAP fees ranging anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Some TRAPs accrue interest so fast there is no way an employee will ever repay it. And TRAPs usually don’t provide any exceptions in situations where, the employee quits for reasons beyond their control – like sexual harassment, disability, or lousy working conditions.

A TRAP can reduce an employee’s pay below minimum wage. It can destroy an employee’s credit. Worse, employers use TRAPs as a threat: don’t leave this job or we’ll sue you, destroy your credit, report you to immigration, and make it so you can never find another job. There’s a word for this, and it was outlawed by the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 😡 😡 😡

How To Spot A TRAP

TRAPs are often hidden in piles of onboarding paperwork, so employees might not even realize they’ve signed one. They are commonly used in nursing, trucking, and service industries, but we’ve also seen them in child care and professional contexts.

The only way to know if your employer is trying to get you to sign a TRAP is to read everything before signing. This can be difficult. People get trapped into TRAPs because they are so desperate for a job that they’ll sign anything. But that’s the trap. Employers may be counting on you to sign because you just need the money, and they may pressure you to sign by acting like the job won’t be there if you take your time.

What To Do When You See A TRAP

GET LEGAL ADVICE. TRAPs are illegal in some, but by no means all, jurisdictions—there’s no way to know without consulting an employment law attorney in your area. Legal or not, if someone is pressuring you to sign a document without having an attorney review it, that’s a sign you probably shouldn’t be signing the document. No job is worth your freedom.

Work and Weed: What New York Workers Need to Know

July 23rd, 2024 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Ask A Worker's Rights Attorney!, Employment and Labor Attorney, New York, Workplace Rights |

Tags: , , , ,

 

This article discusses a law that may affect New York workers, not workers in other states. By the time you read it, it may be out of date. All workers should consult with reputable workplace attorneys in their jurisdictions to understand how the law may affect individual workplace rights.

Introduction:

The New York Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), in addition to decriminalizing recreational use of cannabis, theoretically created some workplace protections for New York workers who engage in legal off-duty use. But last year’s Fourth Department decision,  Matter of Moran-Ruiz v. Ontario County, 218 A.D.3d 1341 (4th Dept. 2023), has called into question many of those protections, and it’s still illegal under federal law. The only intelligent way to understand how the MRTA affects you is to speak with a reputable New York workplace rights attorney. But here are some things to keep in mind.

1. Off-Duty Use of Marijuana:

The MRTA legalizes the recreational off-duty use of marijuana for individuals aged 21 and older. It is important to note that while the act permits the off-duty use of marijuana, it does not grant employees an absolute right to use or be under the influence of marijuana during working hours. Employers still have the right to enforce workplace policies and existing Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions regarding drug use, particularly if it could impair job performance or jeopardize safety.

2. Drug Testing and Employment:

First the bad news: workers in safety-sensitive positions or positions where drug testing is mandated by federal regulations are still subject to testing, including pre-employment and random drug testing.

Now the slightly better news: For existing employees, drug testing can only be conducted if there is reasonable suspicion of on-duty use, impairment, or violation of workplace policies. What is reasonable suspicion? Well… the statute says that reasonable suspicion does not exist unless the employee “manifests specific articulable symptoms of impairment.” Of course it doesn’t define what a “specific articulable symptom of impairment” might be. This guidance from the New York State Department of Labor indicates that just smelling like marijuana is not a specific articulable symptom. Glassy eyes, lack of focus, and lack of coordination have all been posited as possible articulable symptoms. But those are also symptoms of medical conditions that may trigger an obligation on the employer’s part to offer reasonable accommodations. So, watch this space.

The reality is that, if an employer reasonably suspects on-duty marijuana use or impairment, they may request an employee to undergo a drug test, and the drug test will be used as evidence that the employee may have been using marijuana while on duty. And because most employment is at-will, the employer doesn’t have to prove anything. So unless you have a union, you might be out of luck, even if you weren’t high at work.

3. Implications of Matter of Moran-Ruiz v. Ontario County:

This is where it gets weird. The MRTA created a whole new section in the New York lawful off-duty activities statute, seemingly creating robust protections for workers who engage in lawful off-duty use of cannabis.  But Matter of Moran-Ruiz significantly dials back those protections, concluding that the new section only gives employers additional excuses to discriminate on top of all the reasons that employers can already legally discriminate. (Not even kidding. Check out the language at the end of the decision.) So far, Moran-Ruiz stands. But…watch this space.

4. Conclusion:

Theoretically, the MRTA allows for off-duty cannabis use, but employers retain the right to implement policies regarding drug usage during working hours. And the decisional law so far has not been promising. It is crucial for employees to understand the limitations of the statutory protections. Staying informed and seeking legal advice is the best way to protect your workplace rights. Always consult a legal professional for personalized advice.

Dressing for Success: Workplace Dress Codes, Grooming Standards, and Your Rights

July 16th, 2024 by Sarah Ruhlen

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Employers may establish dress codes or grooming standards to create a particular image or comply with safety requirements. These workplace rules may require uniforms or simply require a particular type of attire. Companies generally have the authority create these rules, as long as they apply them equally. As long as the dress code does not stifle Union activity, treat certain groups less favorably, or interfere with a reasonable accommodation, then the dress code wins. But there are some exceptions.

1. Union Clothing

Union-related clothing is a great way to show solidarity with your coworkers. In general, an employer can’t just say “don’t wear Union paraphernalia.” But they can prohibit buttons and pins of any type, or make rules about safety, or say that their dress code prohibits wearing t-shirts. The rules on this issue flip-flop approximately every four years, so talk to your Union rep or a workplace lawyer if you are getting called out for wearing that “Respect Our Contract” button.

2. Discrimination

Although employers have the right to implement dress codes, they must do so in accordance with anti-discrimination laws. Any dress code policy that disproportionately impacts certain protected groups may be deemed discriminatory:

A. Gender

The EEOC has concluded that a dress code that requires only women to wear uniforms probably violates Title VII. Historically, dress codes requiring roughly equivalent standards for male and female employees were considered nondiscriminatory if they were enforced equally (for example, neckties for men, skirts for women). But the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County has moved the needle, affirming that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.  Under Bostock, dress codes and grooming standards may be discriminatory if they are based on outdated sexual stereotypes.

B. Race

Grooming standards that are harsher on one group than another may be discriminatory. For example, if white men are allowed to wear long sideburns and facial hair but Black men are not allowed to wear afros, the grooming policy may be discriminatory. Many states (including New York) have implemented legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of hair textures and hair styles that protect hair from damage.

Likewise, if shaving causes you skin problems, you may be able to get a reasonable accommodation allowing you to deviate from an employer’s “clean shaven” policy – but you’ll probably have to ask for it.

C. Reasonable Accommodations for Religious or Disability-related Considerations

If a dress code conflicts with an employee’s religious practices or medical condition, the employee may request an accommodation. The employer is then required to modify the dress code unless to do so would result in an undue hardship.  Caution:  If you don’t request an accommodation, the employer isn’t going to just hand one out.  Also, the employer doesn’t have to provide the accommodation requested, just one that doesn’t cost them too much money.

In case you’re wondering, a dress code that allows pregnant workers to wear maternity clothes does not violate Title VII as long as other employees with medical conditions are allowed to deviate from the dress code as needed.

D. National Origin:

In general, a dress code does not have to be modified to adhere to a person’s national identity. But a dress code that prohibits some kinds of national attire but not others may be discriminatory. For example, if brightly colored clothing is allowed but an employee gets into trouble for wearing Kente cloth, that could be discriminatory.

Conclusion:

This is a rapidly-changing area, so it’s important to get advice from legal professionals or government agencies when it seems like a dress code is cramping your style. Always speak with a qualified workplace attorney in your geographical area to determine whether you have legal protections against your employer’s dress code!

Federal “White Collar” Overtime Exemption is Getting A Raise!

June 26th, 2024 by Sarah Ruhlen

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 

Heads up: the Federal “White Collar” overtime exemption is getting a raise. Specifically, the salary threshold above which an employee no longer qualifies for overtime will go up on July 1, 2024 to $844/week ($43,888 annually). On January 1, 2025, the threshold will rise again to $1,128/week ($58,656 annually). The new rule contemplates automatic increases to the salary threshold every three years.

The salary threshold is one test for determining whether employees are “exempt” from overtime rules (which actually means the employer is exempt from having to pay overtime). To be considered exempt, employees must meet the salary threshold, be paid on a salary basis (which means the amount of pay is predetermined and not subject to deductions if the employee is ready, willing, and able to work), and perform duties consistent with being a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or outside sales person.

Currently the threshold is at $684/week ($35,568 annually) which cuts out a lot of employees who are making more than minimum wage, but not much more. The July increase won’t have much effect on executives and administrative workers in New York, whose salary threshold is already over $1000/week ($1,124.20 for upstaters, $1,200.00 downstate). But New York professional employees may see a difference.

Expect legal challenges to this rule. And always talk to a workplace rights lawyer in your jurisdiction before making any decisions or claims.

Speaking Up On Behalf Of Your Coworkers

October 9th, 2023 by Sarah Ruhlen

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

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

 

Your employer probably does not welcome your advocating for your colleagues. Whether your advocacy is protected or not depends on what you are discussing, how you say it, and how many other employees it involves.

This is an area of law that flip-flops every few years, so make sure you speak to a reputable workplace attorney!!!

A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board has expanded the protections for your workplace discussions. It’s complicated, but you may have the right to talk with other employees or the boss about things like workplace safety, your wages, the schedule, or other terms and conditions of employment for the purposes of “mutual aid and protection.” “Mutual aid and protection” is one of those legal phrases that has a special meaning, so you’ll definitely need to speak with a lawyer to know whether a particular comment is protected. Generally speaking, if your comment to coworkers is intended to initiate or prepare for group action, or to bring group complaints to management’s attention, it may be protected.

Discussions that only involve your individual circumstances are not protected.  And not every remark made in a group setting is protected. And even if your remark turns out to be protected, it may take months or years of litigation to ascertain that it was protected – during which time you are probably going to be looking for a job.

That said, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives many private-sector workers a federally-protected right to engage in protected concerted activity for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, and they don’t have to be in a union to exercise that right.

If your boss is on your case for a remark you made about a concern shared by your coworkers, talk to a workers’ rights attorney. It may turn out you have some protection.

 

 

Sticky: About this Blog, Disclaimer

June 23rd, 2023 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Uncategorized |

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Please note that the information contained in this blog is for informational purposes and is not to be considered legal advice. This blog does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. Satter Ruhlen Law Firm makes no representation that the information herein reflects the most current state of the law.  This blog is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.  If you would like to discuss your particular circumstances with us, please set up a consultation by contacting the Satter Ruhlen Law Firm at 315-471-0405 or through our website (https://www.satterlaw.com/contact-us/). We look forward to walking you through your workplace rights.

Meet Tashakee!

November 15th, 2022 by Sarah Ruhlen

Posted in Uncategorized |

Tags: , , , ,

Tashakee sitting in front of law books

Tashakee Ledgister is interning with Satter Ruhlen Law Firm this semester through her Political Science Internship Course at Syracuse University, taught by Political Science Professor and Campbell Public Affairs Institute Director Grant Reeher.

Tashakee migrated to the US from Jamaica at the age of 13.  She has lived in NYC and Long Island, and attended high school in Manhattan.  She is now a Junior at SU, majoring in Political Science and Political Philosophy, with a minor in Public Policy.  Tashakee is a Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship Scholar, and a recipient of the Our Time Has Come and Invest in Success scholarships.  She is a South Campus Community Ambassador and a peer mentor for Dimensions and Orange Success.  In her free time, Tashakee is a member of the Caribbean Students Association and is part of the Kalabash Dance Troup, which performs at local SU games and engages in community service projects.  Recent projects include raising over $2000 for underserved families, and running a supply drive for women affected by the NYCHA fire in Harlem. Tashakee plans to go to law school when she graduates.

Tashakee wanted to intern at Satter Ruhlen Law Firm because, while she had worked on political campaigns and interned in a big law firm, she wanted to learn more about working in a small firm. “When I started working at Satter Law, I didn’t know that I was interested in labor law.  It wasn’t an area that I knew anything about previously, but I find it fascinating.” In fact, Tashakee wrote her midterm paper on how her interested in labor law has developed over the semester.  “One of my favorite activities at Satter Law has been sitting in on client consultations.  It has taught me a lot about putting people at their ease when they are under stress and facing emotional situations that drive them to seek legal help.”

We are impressed with Tashakee’s experience on political campaigns and working with underserved populations.  Tashakee is terrific to work with – she’s curious, engaged, and committed to defending workers’ rights.  Also, she’s a ton of fun!  Thanks for joining us, Tashakee!

 

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!

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