Architectural Columns

Tag Archives: Workplace Rights

New York State Minimum Wage Increasing 12/31/21

Money changing hands

Hello, fellow Upstaters!  You probably know by now that New York State private sector minimum wages are going up on December 31, 2021. This is pursuant to amendments to New York State minimum wage orders, which since 2016 have set a goal that the rate, eventually, will reach $15.00/hour for private sector workers statewide. As of December 31, 2021, minimum wage for private sector, non-hospitality or building trade employees in Upstate New York will increase to $13.20/hour.

 

But be careful before you take this opportunity to go on a shopping spree.  First, you might not be in a sector governed by the minimum wage orders (sorry, public employees).  Second, if you’re in New York City, the rules are different for you.  Third, hello food service workers!  You have to deal with stuff like tip credits, tip pooling, and other complications (hint: your wages are still far below everyone else’s because, allegedly, tips are supposed to make up the rest.)

 

Luckily, the New York State Department of Labor has created a wage calculator that will help you figure out whether, and how much, you benefit from this new increase. (Go try it out, it’s fun!)  Additionally, there’s a handy flyer that can give you some background information on where the strive for $15 has taken us so far.

 

As always, if you have questions about your wages, contact a workers’ rights attorney today!

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

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

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!

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.

Five Things You Need To Know About Marital Status Discrimination In New York

 

Discrimination on the basis of an employee’s marital status is prohibited under Section 296 of the New York State Human Rights Law and under Section 8-107(a) of the New York City Administrative Code. However, “marital status discrimination” might not be what you think it is – and the definition is different depending on whether you are looking at the State statute or the New York City statute.

  1. Under New York State Law, Marital Status Discrimination Is Not…

The decision to be aware of here is Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 51 N.Y. 2d 506 (1980), which went like this: Notwithstanding an employer’s anti-nepotism rule, an employee had worked under the supervision of her husband for approximately four years. When a new manager took over, he terminated the wife’s employment pursuant to the anti-nepotism rule. The New York State Court of Appeals concluded that the employer’s action was not marital status discrimination. How is this possible? Because, reasoned the Court, marital status is a question of whether the employee is married, single, widowed, separated, or divorced. Marital status has nothing to do with whom the employee is married to. The employee in Manhattan Pizza Hut was not fired because she was married, but because she was married to her supervisor.

The Manhattan Pizza Hut logic has carried into situations where a company refused to hire an applicant because her husband was already employed there (Matter of Campbell Plastics v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 81 A.D. 2d 1991 (3rd Dept. 1981)) and to a denial of health insurance to an employee who has comparable coverage under a spouse’s insurance benefit (Police Ass’n v. NYS PERB, 126 A.D. 2d 824 (3rd Dept. 1987)). A corrections officer who married an inmate was discharged, not because of her status as “married,” but because she broke a rule against having a relationship with an inmate. Vega v. Dept. of Correctional Services, 186 A.D. 2d 340 (3rd Dept. 1992). In Cramer v. Newburgh Molded Products, 228 A.D. 2d 541 (2d Dept. 1996) an allegation that a plaintiff was terminated “because she was married to Joseph Cramer” did not survive a motion to dismiss because the termination was based on her being married “to Joseph Cramer” rather than simply on her being married. In McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp. , 217 F. Supp. 2d 319 (EDNY 2002), an employee who was sexually harassed did not additionally have a marital status discrimination claim even though her harasser made comments to the effect that she would be “stupid” to marry her fiancé, refused to give her time off to plan her wedding, told her she should not be sleeping with her husband, and tried to dissuade her from going through with the marriage during the wedding.

  1. Marital Status Discrimination Might Be…

In Kipper v. Doron Precision Systems, 194 A.D. 2d 855 (3rd Dept. 1993), an employee’s marital discrimination suit survived dismissal[1] because there was evidence his supervisor told him he was chosen for layoff because he would not experience financial hardships as severe as his married co-workers. The Kipper plaintiff was not laid off because of his involvement or non-involvement with anyone in particular, but because the employer considered him less vulnerable to financial hardship because he was single.[2]

  1. Meanwhile, in New York City…

Contrary to State Law, New York City’s marital status discrimination prohibition is given a “broader meaning than simply married or not married.” Morse v. Fidessa Corp., 165 A.D. 3d 61 (1st Dept. 2018). In direct contrast to the State Court of Appeals’ analysis of State Human Rights Law, the First Department has concluded that the “plain meaning” of marital status includes who the person is married to. In Fidessa, the First Department rejected the Manhattan Pizza Hut definition of “marital status” and specifically found that, under New York City Code, it also encompasses who is married (or not married) to whom.

Likewise, very recently, where a University rescinded its invitation to be part of a new institute following a professor’s divorce from another professor, the NYC marital discrimination suit survived summary judgment.[3] Karayiorgou v. Trustees of Columbia University, 2021 N.Y.  Slip. Op. 31044(U) (NY Co. January 14, 2021). Although factual issues of Karayiorgou remain to be determined, the Court noted strong evidence that the professor had been invited on the strength of her significant contributions to the scientific community, and that un-inviting her based on her ending her relationship with another professor not only constituted marital discrimination, but also smacked of gender bias in that the University’s arguments tried to downplay the plaintiff’s credentials and accomplishments.

  1. What About Other States?

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of employees,[4] federal discrimination law does not specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. A survey of the 50 states’ laws on marital discrimination is beyond the scope of this article, so as always we strongly encourage you to consult with a qualified employment attorney in your jurisdiction.

  1. Wait, am I protected or not?

Short answer: Employees in New York City have relatively strong protections against marital status discrimination. Employees in New York State have protections that have been significantly limited by decisional law. Protections in other states depend on state and local laws and regulations. Bottom line, if you believe you have been discriminated against due to your marital status, the first thing you should do is contact an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction to see what kind of protections you might have, and what if anything can be done to protect your rights.

[1] Surviving a motion to dismiss just means that the case isn’t thrown out of court. It doesn’t mean he won.

[2] Notice anything about the breakdown between plaintiffs’ genders in Item #1 versus Item #2? Don’t try to hang your legal hat on it, but it may say something about what these decisions are trying to accomplish.

[3] Like a motion to dismiss, surviving summary judgment just means that the case isn’t thrown out of court. It doesn’t mean she won.

[4] Employees in the Federal Civil Service do have some protections under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which includes marital status as a protected status.

Yes, Your Employer Has To Pay For Vaccination Time

 

On March 12 New York passed a law [link here] entitling New York workers to up to four hours of paid leave for COVID-19 vaccinations.  That is four hours per injection, which means if you get the Moderna or Pfizer injection, you get a total of two four-hour chunks of leave to get the shots.

Employers have to provide this leave in addition to other leave, which means they can’t make you use sick leave or New York State Paid Leave to cover your vaccine leave.

The leave must be paid at your regular rate.  Retaliation against employees who take vaccination leave is illegal.

The law amends New York Civil Service Law to add Section 159-c, which applies to public employees, and New York Labor Law to add 196-c, which applies to pretty much everyone else.

The law expires on December 31, 2022.

Get out there and get your “Fauci Ouchi!”

Talking About Your Case?  Let’s Talk About That.

 

Of course you want to take your story to the press. You feel you owe it to other employees to expose what has happened to you. It could be the trial of the century. Whether you want to explain it to TikTok, get hugs from Facebook, or rant on Twitter, the world needs to know what these people are doing to you, right?

 

Hold up!!!

 

Getting your story out may feel very satisfying in the short-term, but you may end up regretting the legal consequences later.

 

First, if you are pursuing legal action, or considering pursuing legal action, every word you say to the press or on social media could end up as evidence admissible in court – evidence you don’t want admitted. Plus, if your complaint uses the word “bluegreen” and your Facebook post says “turquoise,” the other side’s attorney is going to have a heyday with the perceived inconsistency. Even totally innocent statements can be twisted to contradict a key element of your claim, and your lawyer may not be able to untangle the mess.

 

Second, if you’re making allegations you can’t prove, the other side may be able to turn around and sue you for defamation. While in some states, statements made “in the course of litigation” may be privileged, the other side is going to have a mighty strong argument that allegations made on Twitter or in an email to a reporter aren’t made “in the course of litigation.”

 

Third, any time you speak you risk divulging confidential information. So if the employer thinks there is a confidentiality breach, you might find yourself getting sued for that breach.

 

Fourth, the employer might be willing to make a settlement offer – in return for a nondisclosure agreement. But an employer who is already paying lots of money to a PR firm to clean up the bad press you’ve created might not see a reason to pay you, too.

 

Fifth, you’ve heard of internet trolls. Internet backlash is real, vicious, and devastating, No matter how angelically you have behaved, some stranger out there may take devilish glee in throwing mud—or worse—at you.

 

What if the press contacted me?

 

All of the above applies, times 100. If the press contacted you then the last thing you want is to feed the fire at the same time you destroy your own case.

 

But the other side is saying terrible things about me!

 

Two points here:  First, if the other side is an employer, they can afford a lot more PR firm time than you can. Second, see above about all the ways a public statement can backfire. That said, if you have had a long talk with your attorney and your attorney has given you the go-ahead, preferably with a very careful set of rules about what you will and will not say, then it’s ok to respond to media attacks – but stick to the script. If you go off-message, you’re going to pay for a lot of legal hours while your lawyer cleans up the mess.

 

So mum’s the word?

 

Well, no. Your attorney may have some reasons for wanting to release measured statements. For example, if your matter involves a large group of people who may have experienced the same workplace violation, your lawyer may want to enlist the press in finding other victims. The same method can help locate witnesses. In some circumstances, the lawyer may even consider it useful to for you to give a statement.

 

Bottom line:  Whatever you do, if you want to win your suit, never speak to the press without consulting legal counsel first.

Seven Things LGBTQ Workers Need To Know About Protecting Title VII Rights

 

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA that Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination.  Even in the midst of the pandemic shutdown and the murder of George Floyd, workers and workers’ rights activists took to the (virtual) streets in celebration. Social media was covered in rainbow flags and memes involving unicorns and RBG.  Bostock was a desperately-needed ray of sunshine that week.

 

It still is.

 

If you’re feeling like the magic is gone, it may be because Title VII rights are tough to assert—for workers in any protected class.  Here are some lessons from the trenches:

 

  1. Get a lawyer. A workers’ rights attorney can advise whether there’s something legally wrong in the workplace, what options you have for combatting it, and how much it will cost to combat.  While it’s possible you have the case of the century, more often an attorney is going to be helping you decide when to fight, when to walk away, and when to run… (cue Kenny Rogers…)

 

  1. Document like mad. Is your employer needlessly complicating a name change process?  Do your coworkers constantly misgender and dead-name?  Is health insurance paying for cancer-related mastectomies but not those for TGNC patients?  Are you being asked non-job related health questions?  Is someone obsessed with which bathroom you use?  Specific, real-time documentation is your talisman.  Write down dates, times, locations, witnesses, what happened, what was said, and the effect the incident had on you (e.g., high blood pressure, PTSD, shaky hands all afternoon, felt humiliated, etc.)  The more exactly you can remember the wording of any comments, the better.  Send this information to yourself on your personal email account (NOT your work account, please).  Your attorney will be grateful for this real-time documentation.

 

  1. Use the complaint process – with caution. This is where the advice of an attorney is indispensable.  Making an internal complaint is sometimes like painting a target on your own back.  But if you’re already wearing a target, making a complaint puts the employer on notice that it may be looking at some pretty gritty legal liability.  For some employers, that fear will spur them to make some positive changes.

 

  1. Use the complaint process – with precision. Get an attorney to review your complaint. (Don’t rely on a verbal complaint.  Just don’t.)  The words “My boss is acting inappropriately” do not have the same effect as “On September 1, 2020 at 11:45 am, Henry Frick followed me to the restroom and asked whether I was leaving the seat up or not. Joe Hill and Hattie Canty witnessed this incident. I felt sick to my stomach the rest of the afternoon. I consider this to be gender-based harassment.”  The words you use will have an enormous effect on the strength of your legal position.

 

  1. Don’t let other employees turn you into “Queer Google.” You are there to do a job.  Your coworkers’ non-work related curiosity, even if it is well-intentioned, will interfere with your productivity and get you into trouble.  It is not your job to educate your cis colleagues.  If they are asking invasive or impertinent questions, it’s worth a conversation with your attorney to decide how to handle it in a way that ensures your Title VII rights are protected.

 

  1. Don’t quit – unless your attorney, doctor, spouse, or career coach says to. If you quit, you may cut off your ability to recover monetary losses. Courts don’t like speculative damages in the first place, and it’s hard to argue you had any expectation of continued earnings if you were the one who cut off your own earnings by quitting. But if the job is affecting your health, relationships, or career – or if your attorney says you can’t fix the problem—you may need to consider your big picture priorities.

 

  1. Don’t rely on lists you read on the internet. Speak with an attorney.  You deserve the peace of mind that comes with understanding your new legal rights at work.

 

 

Ask A Worker’s Rights Attorney!

Law Books

The Satter Ruhlen Law Firm presents:

 

Ask A Worker’s Rights Attorney!

A webinar for workers.

Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 6:00 pm

 

Do you work in New York?  Do you have a question about your workplace rights?  This is your chance to ask an attorney about it.  One lawyer, six participants, eight minutes per participant (we’ll have a timer!)  Quick answers to your questions about wage and hour violations, discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing, unionizing, non-compete clauses, and other questions like “can they really do that to me?”

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Space is limited, so sign up soon!*

Participants will receive a 10% discount on a one-hour consultation with the Satter Ruhlen Law Firm.

Please note that this webinar is for informational purposes and is not to be considered legal advice. Participation in the webinar does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you would like a dedicated one-hour consultation with us, please contact 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.

*Registrations will be screened for employees’ protection.

 

Update: Biden Reinstates Job Protections for Federal Civil Servants

By Diane Williamson

Please note that the information contained in this post is for informational purposes and is not to be considered legal advice. This blog post does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship.  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. 

In November this blog spread the word that President Trump signed an executive order that made it easier to terminate civil servants working for the federal government. There is good news for those of you impacted by this Trump policy shift.

On January 22, 2021, President Biden reversed the Trump administration’s executive order that targeted civil service workers by creating “Schedule F” employees, a new class of civil servants who could be hired or fired without regard to civil service rules. Biden’s executive order protects an employment merit system so that civil servants cannot be appointed and terminated for political purposes.

According to the Business of Federal Technology Journal, the Office of Management and Budget made moves to reclassify almost 90% of its workforce as Schedule F in the last days of President Trump’s administration. While the reclassifications had not yet taken place, their imminence suggests that the institutions of democratic government are weaker than we may have realized. These dueling executive orders remind us that we cannot take for granted our system in which government employees enforce the laws and not the power of elected officials. The government, like any workplace, functions best when its employees are evaluated on performance not on their allegiance to certain leaders.

The new executive order also reinstates union rights that were eliminated by the Trump administration executive orders, signed on March 28, 2018, which restricted collective bargaining and were the subject of several lawsuits and labor practice challenges.

The new executive order directs the Office of Personnel Management to instruct the President on recommendations for moving toward a $15 minimum wage for federal employees.

As stated in President Biden’s executive order: “It is also the policy of the United States to encourage union organizing and collective bargaining. The Federal Government should serve as a model employer.” These changes are a step in the right direction for workers.

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.