Skip to main content

New Laws For 2019: New York Labor Law Section 203-e


Earlier this year, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that prohibits employers in the state from engaging in employment discrimination based on an employee’s or dependent’s “reproductive health decision making.”  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the legislation into law last month.

The legislation, which adds Section 203-e to the state’s labor law, does several things:  1) employers cannot access an employee’s personal information in regard to the employee’s (or employee’s dependent’s) reproductive health decisions without the employee’s informed written consent, 2) employers cannot discriminate or take any retaliatory action against an employee in regard to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of or based on the employee’s (or the employee’s dependent’s) reproductive health decisions, and 3) employers are barred from requiring employees to sign a waiver, or other document, that purports to deny employees the right to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.  Interestingly enough, for employers in the state that provide employee handbooks, this information must be included.

Notably, the legislation does have some teeth to it, in regard to an employer’s liability for a violation. Employees are entitled to bring their own private cause of action against an employer and may recover back pay, benefits, reasonable attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and/or reinstatement.  A court may also award an employee liquidated damages equal to 100% of the award for damages, unless the employer can establish a good faith basis to believe its actions were in compliance with the law.  Further, civil penalties may be imposed against an employer that retaliates against an employee for filing a complaint under this new law.  (Retaliation includes “discharging, suspending, demoting, or otherwise penalizing” an employee for “making or threatening to make a complaint to an employer, a co-worker, or to a public body.”)

With the law already in effect, employers in New York would be smart to examine their business practices and ensure compliance...including taking steps to include this information in any employee handbooks currently in use.


For a copy of the legislation:  https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S660

For additional information on the legislation, including how the New York State Legislature voted:  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s660

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more