Architectural Columns

Tag Archives: #FindAnAttorneyNearMe

Workplace Violence: Safety Concerns and Legal Protection in New York

 

Workplaces are dangerous places. Even jobs that don’t involve heavy machinery, poisonous substances, or other physical hazards are plagued with one inescapable safety concern: other people.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2021-22 indicates workplace violence was responsible for 57,610 workplace injuries that resulted in days away from work; there were 524 fatalities as the result of workplace violence in 2022 alone.  These injuries resulted from gun violence, bombs, knives, arson, fisticuffs, sexual assault, strangulation, and threats and verbal assault. They were perpetrated by coworkers, bosses, customers, clients, and vendors. Many took place at service and healthcare job sites, but they also occurred in educational settings, professional offices, construction, and transportation, and other industries.

What protections do workers have? Well, it’s complicated. Read on.

What We’ve Got In New York

Several states have enacted laws addressing workplace violence. Some are more effective than others, and each state focuses on different areas. Here’s what’s available in New York (if you work in another state, talk to an attorney in your jurisdiction!):

Since 2006, New York State has had a Workplace Violence [“WPV”] Prevention Act [“Act”] on the books. The Act covers public sector workplaces only (as of January 4, 2024, this includes public school districts as well). It is designed to prevent intentional injuries as well as threats and attempts, including a prohibition on stalking. The Act requires government employers to evaluate risk factors, provide training, implement a system for reporting WPV incidents, and keep records. Certain employers are required to develop a written WPV Prevention Program and post notices about it.

Does this mean New York public sector workers can go to work free from the threat of workplace violence? Well, hardly. Enforcement of the Act is confided to New York’s Public Employee Safety and Health [“PESH”] Bureau, an organization that will inspect a workplace and issue notices to the public employer. Public sector employees can file a complaint with PESH, and PESH may arrange a site visit or issue a notice. If the employer does not abate the hazards, PESH can impose fines of up to $200.00 per day (which seems like a chunk of change, but it’s not much of a deterrent for a lot of employers).

Help (Might Be) On The Way (Sort Of)!

Notice how we keep bolding the word “public” above? That’s because most employees are private sector employees. If you work at a nonprofit hospital or a hardware store, this law does not protect you.

The New York Retail Worker Safety Act [“RWSA”], designed to address workplace violence in retail establishments, has been making its way through the New York State Legislature and has passed in both the Senate and Assembly. The RWSA would require employers in the retail industry to identify risk factors, provide training (including active shooter drills), document and report incidents, and some retail employers would be required to employ a security guard. And the RWSA would require installation of “panic buttons” in certain retail situations. Enforcement is not mentioned in the bill, but the New York State Commissioner of Labor would be empowered to come up with regulations to implement the provisions. Watch this space.

What About The Rest Of Us?

While public sector and retail workers are getting some minimal attention, these laws don’t do much for the rest of us. Injured workers may have recourse to Workers Compensation, and workers who are being harassed may, in some cases, have protection under antidiscrimination or other laws. OSHA keeps making noise about workplaces being “free from recognized hazards” but does not currently have a standard specific to workplace violence.

So a lot of people who work with a legitimately scary person are at the mercy of the boss, who may or may not feel like doing something about the scary person. This is where speaking with a good workplace attorney can be useful. The individual facts of any workplace situation are key to understanding what options are available to employees in these frightening situations.

Conclusion:

While New York has implemented some measures to address workplace violence, such as the Workplace Violence Prevention Act for public sector workers and the pending Retail Worker Safety Act for those in the retail industry, these laws do not cover everyone. It is important for employees who are dealing with frightening situations to consult with an experienced workplace attorney to explore their options. A good workplace attorney can help individuals navigate the complexities of their situation and determine the best course of action.

What’s Going On With Non-Compete Agreements?

 

            You may have heard about the Federal Trade Commission’s Final Rule banning non-compete clauses, which issued on April 23, 2024. What does that mean for workers two months later? So far…well, read on.

            What is a non-compete? A non-compete (or noncompete, depending on who is spelling it) is a form of restrictive covenant, which is a way of restricting activity after a transaction or legal relationship has ended. The most basic form of a non-compete prohibits an employee at Company A from going to work for Company B for a period of time after the employee no longer works for Company A.

            Yes, you read that right. Company A wants to control the employee after the employee no longer works for, and is no longer paid by, Company A. Simply put, if a worker is unhappy in the job and wants to move on to a better opportunity, a non-compete stops that from happening. Workers who violate these clauses can face hundreds of thousands of dollars in liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and the total destruction of their careers.

If this seems perverse to you, join the club. As long ago as 2016, the New York State Attorney General reached an agreement with Jimmy John’s, following an investigation into the sandwich company’s practice of distributing two-year non-competes to sandwich makers. The AG put a stop to the practice, observing that these things “…limit mobility and opportunity for vulnerable workers and bully them into staying with the threat of being sued.” The New York State AG’s efforts notwithstanding, non-competes continue to be used to limit worker mobility in a variety of industries.

            Is that even legal? Here’s what happens. Say a worker gets a job at a sandwich shop. On the worker’s first day, there’s something called “orientation” or “onboarding” or “training.” During this process, the worker has to sign a dozen or so documents, such as W-4s, I-9s, acknowledgments, etc. One of those documents might be some kind of restrictive covenant. The employee may not even know they signed it. And the employee does not have a choice in the matter: no signature, no job. So the employee signs so they can hurry up and get to the sandwich-making.

Officially, while most employment documents have been deemed by the courts not to be  binding contracts, historically, non-competes have been held to be enforceable because, so the logic goes, in return for providing the worker the sumptuous privilege of being paid to make sandwiches, the employer is entitled to extract several years of the employee’s life force. According to the traditional legal analysis, it’s a bargain. And unless a statute specifies otherwise, parties can usually bargain away their own rights, which is why it’s a darn good idea to have an attorney review things before you sign them.

            Realistically, the employee has gotten no opportunity to bargain. The employee needs that sandwich-making job to make their car payment and will sign anything to get that paycheck. Sure it’s a contract. It’s also patently unfair.

            What happened?  The FTC, after several months of gathering commentary, concluded that non-competes are…well…non-competitive. The FTC doesn’t like stuff that interferes with competition. Hence the rule. (This paragraph is a very watered down version of the 570-page rule. Check out pages 11-14 for some real-life examples of how destructive a non-compete can really be.)

            Where are we now? First of all, the rule doesn’t become effective until 120 days after it’s published in the Federal Register, which means even if no one hated this rule it wouldn’t go into effect until around September 10.

            Second, employers couldn’t move fast enough to take the FTC to court. An accounting firm beat everyone else with Ryan, LCC v. Federal Trade Commission, pending in the Northern District of Texas. The Chamber of Commerce (which, by the way, couldn’t name any employers who were actually hurt by the rule) filed its own case in the Eastern District of Texas but lost out because Ryan got there first. But the COC is being allowed to join the Ryan case, so that’s nice for employers.

            Where this leaves the rest of us is that, while we don’t have any crystal balls, decisions coming out of Texas courts recently have not been overwhelmingly progressive. On the other hand, even rich people are sometimes annoyed by non-competes. But then again, employers are already figuring out work-arounds…so don’t pop open the workers’ rights champagne just yet. But go ahead and leave it in the fridge door; we might end up having a use for it in a couple months!

            Who knows what will happen between now and September, so if you’re wondering what this means for your particular situation, make sure you speak with a workers’ rights attorney in your jurisdiction. Fingers crossed.

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