On Dec. 18, 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule introducing significant changes to the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. This rule aims to modernize the H-1B process, improve program efficiency, offer new benefits and flexibilities, and implement enhanced integrity measures. While the changes primarily affect H-1B specialty occupation workers, other nonimmigrant classifications, including H-2, H-3, F-1, L-1, O, P, Q-1, R-1, E-3 and TN categories, will also see impacts.

Key Updates

The new H-1B eligibility requirements and accompanying changes will apply to petitions filed on or after Jan. 17, 2025. At that time, USCIS will require a revised Form I-129 for all filings. A preview of the updated form is currently available on the USCIS website.

In response to public comments, USCIS highlighted several key revisions and removals from the proposed rule (NPRM) in the final regulation. One significant change involves the definition of “specialty occupation.” The proposed rule previously specified that if a petitioner required only a general degree, such as “business administration” or “liberal arts,” without further specialization, the occupation would not qualify as an H-1B “specialty occupation.” References to these degrees were removed in the final rule. This change shifts focus to the “beneficiary’s actual course of study” rather than solely the degree title, emphasizing the relevance of the education to the job.

Under the final rule, a position qualifies as an H-1B “specialty occupation” if it requires the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and mandates at least a bachelor’s degree in a “directly related” specific specialty or its equivalent. A “directly related” degree is defined as one with a “logical connection between the required degree and the duties of the position.”

For positions where a bachelor’s degree in a specific specialty is “normally” the minimum requirement, petitioners do not need to prove that it is always the minimum. DHS clarified that “normal” is interpreted as “usual, typical, common, or routine,” and rejected a proposal to use the preponderance of the evidence standard (“more likely than not”) for this determination.

When petitioners specify a range of acceptable degree fields, they must demonstrate that each field is “directly related” to the job’s duties. Each degree must equip the beneficiary with the specialized knowledge required to perform the job. The petitioner bears the burden of proving how each field of study represents a “specific specialty” directly connected to the position’s responsibilities.

USCIS has also updated the requirements for H-1B cap exemptions. Nonprofit and governmental research organizations must now demonstrate that research is a “fundamental activity” rather than their primary mission.

To qualify for the ACWIA fee exemption, a nonprofit organization must now be recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as tax-exempt under sections 501(c)(3), (c)(4) or (c)(6). Previously, regulations required that nonprofits not only be tax-exempt under these IRS sections but also have specifically obtained IRS approval for tax-exempt status for research or educational purposes.

USCIS has removed the requirement for detailed itineraries covering the full validity period of the petition. However, petitioners must still establish that the position will exist as of the start date. For third-party placements, specialty occupation requirements will now be based on the job criteria of the third-party organization. Supporting evidence such as contracts, statements of work, or client letters will remain necessary.

Expanded authority for site visits will allow USCIS to inspect not only petitioner worksites but also third-party locations and private residences where remote work occurs. Refusal to cooperate during site visits may lead to petition denial or revocation.

Amended petition requirements have been clarified to codify existing guidance, including when new Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) are unnecessary (e.g., for short-term placements). USCIS has also codified its deference policy, meaning prior determinations involving the same parties and facts will generally be deferred to, barring material errors, changes or new adverse information.

Under the new rule, H-1B Cap-Gap extensions may continue until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the non-frivolous petition was filed or until the start date of the H-1B petition if approved, whichever occurs first. Previously, H-1B Cap-Gap extensions lasted until Sept. 30, the day before the start of the fiscal year associated with the petition.

The new rule under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(ii) adds a provision for H-1B petitions approved after the requested validity period. USCIS may issue an RFE allowing petitioners to amend the dates. If the new dates exceed the Labor Condition Application (LCA) validity, a new LCA must be submitted. Changes to employment dates or wage increases are not considered material changes if the position remains the same. If no amendment is requested or no RFE is issued/replied to, the petition is approved for the original period without status changes or extensions.

Action Items

We recommend that clients review current and planned filings in light of these new rules. For those with upcoming H-1B or other nonimmigrant petitions, it is critical to prepare for the changes to eligibility requirements, updated forms and enhanced compliance measures.

If you have any questions, please contact Kseniya Premo, any attorney in the firm’s immigration or labor and employment practices, or the Bond attorney with whom you have regular contact. We are here to help ensure a smooth transition and compliance with the new regulations

As we approach the end of 2024, employers in New Jersey should be preparing for the implementation of new employment and business laws and regulations in the upcoming year. This article provides an overview of some significant changes and updates in the law set to take effect in 2025, though it is not a fully comprehensive list.

1. Minimum Wage Increases: Effective Jan. 1, 2025, the minimum wage will increase by $0.36 to $15.49 per hour for most employees. N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4. For tipped workers, the minimum wage will increase to $5.62 per hour, up from $5.26. The maximum tip credit for employers remains at $9.87. N.J.S.A. 12:56-3.5.
2. Pay Transparency: On Nov. 18, 2024, Governor Phil Murphy signed a new statute requiring employers with at least 10 employees to include wage or salary information, or a compensation range, in any posting for a promotion, new job or transfer. The law, effective June 1, 2025, also requires employers to list benefits and other compensation programs for which the employee would be eligible within the employee’s first 12 months of employment.
3. Gender Neutral Dress Code Policies: On June 28, 2024, the New Jersey Attorney General and New Jersey Division of Civil Rights Director announced that businesses are mandated to adopt gender neutral dress codes for patrons and employees. This decision comes after the Division on Civil Rights issued a finding of probable cause where a restaurant refused to adopt a gender-neutral dress code. As part of the consent order, the restaurant agreed to modify its dress code for both employees and customers. Employers should reevaluate and modify any existing dress code policies and/or handbooks to ensure compliance with the new standards set forth by the Attorney General’s Office.
4. New Jersey Data Protection Act: Starting Jan. 15, 2025, New Jersey will require covered entities to: (1) limit the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary; (2) implement reasonable data security practices; (3) provide privacy notices; (4) allow consumers to revoke consent for  processing; (5) conduct data protection impact assessments; and (6) maintain records of data protection assessments. C.56:8-166.12. Covered entities include: (a) entities that conduct business in New Jersey or produce products or services targeted to New Jersey; and (b) control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 consumers (not including personal data controlled solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction), or control or process the personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive revenue or receive a discount on the price of any goods or services from the sale of personal data. C.56:8-166.5. “Consumers” are defined as a person that is a resident of New Jersey, not acting in a commercial or employment context. C.56:8-166.4(1). The Office of the Attorney General has the sole and exclusive authority to enforce a violation of the New Jersey Data Protection Act (“NJDPA”), which are considered violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. C.56:8-166.19.  Penalties for a first violation are up to $10,000 and up to $20,000 for subsequent violations. Given the expansive nature of this new privacy law, New Jersey businesses should consider reviewing their company’s personal data policy and retention practices.

Key Takeaways

Given these recent and forthcoming changes in New Jersey law, employers should take steps to update their employee handbooks, ensure their job postings meet compliance standards, and adjust their hiring procedures to align with updated policies and wage practices. Furthermore, New Jersey’s new far reaching cyber privacy law will require businesses to review their data privacy policies and data collection processes to ensure compliance.

If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding any policy updates, or other legal developments, please contact Samuel Dobre, Mallory Campbell, Patrick Caldarelli or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

By: Nicholas P. Jacobson

All contractors and subcontractors who submit bids or perform construction work on public work projects or private projects covered by Article 8 of the Labor Law are required to register with the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) by Monday, Dec. 30, 2024, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law Section 220-i. The new law is designed to ensure contractors and subcontractors working on public projects or projects receiving public funding “do not have previous labor law violations and will abide by the New York Labor Laws and Regulations, including prevailing wage requirements.”

Who is Covered?

Section 220-i(a) defines a contractor as “any entity entering into a contract to perform construction, demolition, reconstruction, excavation, rehabilitation, repair, installation, renovation, alteration, or custom fabrication.” Under 220-i(b), a subcontractor is any entity who subcontracts with a contractor to perform any of the tasks mentioned in the contractor definition.

What is Covered?

Private projects subject to Article 8 of the Labor Law include those covered by Labor Law Sections 224-a (public subsidy funded projects), 224-d (renewable energy systems), 224-e (broadband projects), and 224-f (climate risk-related and energy transition projects, and roadway excavations).

Registration Requirements

Contractors and subcontractors will need to be able to provide the following information:

1. Business name and principal address
2. Contact phone number
3. Status as a person, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or other form of business entity
4. The name, address, and percentage interest of each person with an ownership interest
5. The names and addresses of the corporation’s officers (if a publicly traded corporation)
6. Tax Identification Number (FEIN)
7. Unemployment Insurance Registration Number
8. Workers’ Compensation Board Employer Number
9. Outstanding wage assessments
10. Federal or state debarment history over the last eight years
11. Final determinations of violations of any labor laws or employment tax laws including but not limited to:
    1. Workers’ compensation coverage requirements
    2. Payment of workers’ compensation premiums
    3. Deduction and payment of income taxes
    4. Payment of unemployment insurance contributions
    5. Payment of prevailing wage
12. Final determinations of violations of any workplace safety laws or standards, including federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) standards
13. Participation in a New York State Apprenticeship Program, if applicable
14. Status as a New York State certified Minority or Women-owned Business Enterprise (MWBE), if applicable
15. Proof of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Coverage

Penalties for Failing to Register

Pursuant to Section 220-i(8), “a contractor bidding on a contract for public work knowing it is not registered, or allow[ing] a subcontractor to commence work on a covered project that it knows or should have known is not registered,” can be subject to a fine of up to $1,000. Subcontractors that knowingly engage in projects that are covered but unregistered will be subject to the same penalty. NYSDOL encourages all contractors and subcontractors to register as soon as possible to avoid negatively impacting a bidding period or project schedule. Contractors are responsible for verifying that all of their subcontractors are properly registered.

If approved, contractors and subcontractors will receive a Certificate of Registration electronically. If registration is not approved, contractors and subcontractors can request a hearing within 30 days of notification.

If you have questions about registering your business, please reach out to any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney with whom you regularly work. To stay fully up to date on employment law in New York, subscribe and visit Bond’s New York Labor and Employment Law Report and attend Bond’s complimentary weekly webinar series offered every Tuesday at noon.

On Dec. 3, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to phase out the issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 14(c) certificates that allow employers to pay employees with disabilities subminimum wages.

The proposed rule would end the issuance of new Section 14(c) certificates and would only allow certificate holders to apply for renewals for three years after the effective date. At the end of the three-year phase out period, all Section 14(c) certificates will expire and all workers that were paid subminimum wages under Section 14(c) certificates will be required to be paid at or above the minimum wage. The WHD has emphasized that this rule will not require workers to leave their places of employment or require current certificate holders to alter any additional services they provide to these employees.

The FLSA created a guaranteed, non-waivable, federal minimum wage which is currently $7.25 per hour “except as otherwise provided.” Pursuant to Section 14(c)(1) of the FLSA, the Secretary of Labor has a limited power to issue certificates that allow employers to pay subminimum wages if it is determined that the certificates are necessary to prevent the curtailment of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The WHD proposed this new rule to phase out the issuance of Section 14(c) certificates because it has determined that this statutory condition is no longer met.

The WHD based this determination on several factors. First, since the FLSA was signed into law in 1938 and since the most recent substantive revisions to Section 14(c) were made in 1989, the WHD noted that there have been significant steps to promote employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities through advances in technology, community advocacy and legislation.

Second, the WHD cited the steady decline in current certificate holders and subminimum wage employees as evidence of a lack of curtailment of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. According to data gathered by the WHD, there were 424,000 workers paid subminimum wages under Section 14(c) certificates and 5,612 certificate holders in 2001, compared to 40,579 workers paid subminimum wages and 801 certificate holders in 2024.

Third, the WHD noted that 33 states have already prohibited or further restricted the payment of subminimum wages to individuals with disabilities.

Finally, the WHD cited several studies suggesting misuse of Section 14(c) certificates and indicating that the work done by the employees working under those certificates often lacks opportunities for advancement or does not provide transferable skills. Based on those studies, the WHD concluded that the use of Section 14(c) certificates may have the counterproductive effect of curtailing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

The WHD has invited the public to comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. The public comment period will be open until Jan. 17, 2025.

If you have any questions, please contact Subhash Viswanathan, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice, or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

*Special thanks to Gavin Gretsky for his assistance in the preparation of this memo. Gavin is not yet admitted to practice law. 

As 2024 comes to a close, New York prepares for the rollout of new employment laws and regulations in the coming year. While not an exhaustive summary, this article highlights key developments and updates in employment law for 2025.

1. Minimum Wage Increases. Effective January 1, 2025, the hourly minimum wage for the New York metro area, which includes New York City, Westchester and Long Island, will increase from $16.00 to $16.50. Wages across the rest of New York State (excluding New York City, Westchester and Long Island) will increase from $15.00 to $15.50. Also, effective January 1, 2025, are changes to the tip credit for food service workers. In New York City, Westchester and Long Island, the tip credit for food service works will be increased from $5.35 to $5.50. For service workers, the tip credit will be increased from $2.65 to $2.75. Other than New York City, Westchester and Long Island, the tip credit for food service workers in New York will be increased from $5.00 to $5.15 and the tip credit for service workers will be increased from $2.50 to $2.60.
2. Salary Exempt Threshold Changes. Employees may be exempt from overtime requirements depending on their job duties. On January 1, 2025, the new weekly minimum salary threshold for exempt status will increase to $1,237.50 from $1,200.00 in New York City, Westchester and Long Island. For the rest of New York State, the new weekly minimum salary is $1,161.65 per week, up from $1,124.20.
3. New York Retail Worker Safety Act. On September 5, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the New York Retail Worker Safety Act into law. Covered retail employers have until March 4, 2025 to ensure compliance with the law’s new requirements for the adoption of polices and training for workplace violence prevention. Specifically, the Act requires a workplace violence prevention policy that (1) outlines a list of factors or situations in the workplace that might place retail employees at risk of workplace violence, (2) outlines methods that the employer may use to prevent incidents of workplace violence, (3) includes information concerning the federal and state statutory provisions concerning violence against retail workers and remedies available to victims of violence, and (4) states that retaliation against individuals who complain of workplace violence, or who testify or assist in any is unlawful. The Act also requires a workplace violence prevention training program providing, among other things, information on the requirements under the law, active shooter drills and training on areas of previous security problems. Finally, effective January 1, 2027, covered retail employers with 500 or more retail employees nationwide must provide access to “panic” buttons throughout the workplace to summon immediate assistance from law enforcement.
4. End of COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave.  COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave expires on July 31, 2025. After July 31, 2025, employees will need to use existing paid leave, such as New York State’s Paid Sick Leave or New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time to manage care or isolate for COVID-19.
5. Paid Prenatal Leave. Effective January 1, 2025, employers are required to provide employees with 20 hours of prenatal personal leave during any 52-week calendar period. Paid prenatal leave is to be provided in addition to other existing sick leave. The leave may be taken for health care services such as physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing and discussions with health care providers related to pregnancy. Paid prenatal leave may be taken in and must be paid in one-hour increments.  Additionally, the use of the language “their pregnancy” indicates the law covers only pregnant employees and not spouses. The law does not state employees must work for a specified period of time before being eligible for prenatal leave. Employers are not required to pay an employee for unused paid prenatal leave upon termination, resignation or other separation from employment.

For more information, you can visit New York State’s Website dedicated to Paid Prenatal Leave: https://www.ny.gov/programs/new-york-state-paid-prenatal-leave

Key Takeaways

In light of these recent and upcoming employment law developments, employers should review and update their employee handbooks, bring their job advertisements into compliance and revise their hiring practices as they relate to employee policies and wage practices.

If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding handbook updates, or other legal developments, please contact Samuel Dobre, Mallory Campbell, Patrick Caldarelli or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

On Nov. 15, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final rule that increased the minimum salary requirements for employees exempt from the Federal Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime protections under the executive, administrative and professional exemptions (also known as white-collar exemptions).

The DOL issued this final rule in April 2024, which had several parts. First, on July 1, 2024, the minimum salary for white collar exemptions increased from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). Then, the minimum salary for white collar exemptions was set to increase again on Jan. 1, 2025 to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually). Finally, the minimum salary was set to increase again in July 2027, automatically increasing every three years.

The Texas district court’s decision prevents the DOL’s final rule from going into effect on a nation-wide basis. The court reasoned that the rule exceeded the DOL’s statutory authority under the FLSA.

Based on the court’s decision, the increase to the overtime threshold scheduled on Jan. 1, 2025 will not go into effect. The decision also retroactively struck down the salary increase that went into effect on July 1, 2024. This decision sets the FLSA salary requirements for white-collar exemptions back to $684 per week.

Of course, many states have salary requirements for these exemptions that exceed the FLSA threshold. New York is one of these states. In New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties, exempt executive and administrative employees have a minimum salary requirement of $1,200 per week ($62,400 annually). For the remainder of New York state, the minimum salary requirement for the executive and administrative exemptions is $1,124.20 per week ($58,457.40 annually). These amounts increase on Jan. 1, 2025 to $1,237.50 ($64,350 annually) and $1,161.65 ($60,405.80 annually), respectively.

Notably, New York does not have a salary requirement for the professional exemption. Therefore, New York employers must follow the FLSA salary requirement for exempt professional employees, which, as described above, is back to $684 per week.

With this decision, employers should review their salary levels for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.

If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Michael Billok, Natalie Vogel or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice, or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

Once again, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has upended long-established precedent. On Nov. 13, 2024, the Board issued its decision in Amazon.com Service, LLC, banning so-called “captive audience meetings” where employers express their views on unionization.

Read More >> The National Labor Relations Board Rejects 75 Years of Precedent and Bans Captive Audience Meetings

We previously reported that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum in May 2023 advancing the position that non-compete agreements between employers and employees that limit employees from accepting certain jobs at the end of their employment, interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On October 7, 2024, the General Counsel issued another memorandum that expands her position on non-compete agreements by stating her opposition to certain repayment arrangements often included in sign-on bonus and retention bonus programs and policies to reimburse for relocation costs, training and education courses, that are commonly referred to as “stay-or-pay” provisions.

The General Counsel’s memorandum does not represent a statement of the current law nor does it establish new law. Rather, it is the latest effort by the General Counsel, in her advocacy role, to try to reinterpret the NLRA, which, in this case, may serve to restrict employers’ actions to protect their legitimate interests.

New Potential Penalties for Unlawful Non-Compete Agreements

The General Counsel’s May 2023 memorandum stated her position that most non-compete agreements violate employees’ Section 7 rights. General Counsel Abruzzo’s rationale for this position is that non-compete agreements may deter employees from resigning or threatening to resign in protest of working conditions. In the October 2024 memorandum, the General Counsel states her intent to pursue expansive remedies against employers found to have maintained unlawful non-compete agreements.

Specifically, according to the General Counsel, where an employer has been found to have maintained a non-compete agreement or provision that is unlawful under the Act, the employer should be ordered to post a notice of its violation and, during the notice-posting period (usually 60 days), current employees should be permitted to come forward to show their entitlement to damages. The memo states that an employee need prove only the following: (1) There was a vacancy available for a job with a better compensation package; (2) they were qualified for the job; and (3) they were discouraged from applying for or accepting the job because of the non-compete provision. The employer would then be required to compensate the employee for the difference (in terms of pay or benefits) between what the employee would have earned and what they did earn during the same period. Additionally, former employees would be able to come forward to claim any damages, such as reductions in earnings or increased time between jobs, that they experienced due to the non-compete agreement or provision.

To be clear, these remedies are not current Board law. While they only represent the General Counsel’s newly formulated enforcement strategy, such remedies become a relevant factor in an employer’s risk assessment over the use and enforcement of non-compete agreements.

The Burden to Justify Stay-Or-Pay Provisions Will Fall on the Employer

The GC memorandum defines a stay-or-pay provision as “any contract under which an employee must pay their employer if they separate from employment, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, within a certain time frame.” Stay-or-pay provisions are generally tied to employee benefits such as sign-on bonuses, retention bonuses, payments for relocation costs and reimbursement for tuition and other costs associated with educational programs and training courses. The memo also describes so-called “quit fees” and damages clauses as arrangements that impose a financial penalty on the employee for their separation from employment untethered to a pre-payment or benefit previously provided to the employee.

The General Counsel’s view is that all stay-or-pay provisions similarly have a tendency to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by limiting employee mobility and by “increas …[ing] employee fear of termination for engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  In her opinion, all stay-or-pay provisions are presumptively unlawful. They will be found to violate the Act unless an employer rebuts this presumption by providing that the provision advances a legitimate business interest and is narrowly tailored to minimize infringement on Section 7 rights. An employer can meet this standard by proving that the stay-or-pay provision: (1) is voluntarily entered into in exchange for a benefit; (2) has a reasonable and specific repayment amount; (3) has a reasonable “stay” period; and (4) does not require repayment if the employee is terminated without cause.

General Counsel Abruzzo explains that where a stay-or-pay provision was voluntarily entered into with informed consent but is not narrowly tailored in one or more ways discussed above, the employer should be ordered to rescind the unlawful provision and replace it with a lawful one. However, where the arrangement was not entered into with informed consent, the General Counsel will seek an order that includes the cancelation of the debt to the employer. 

The outsized reach of the General Counsel is illustrated by her proposed mandatory rewrite of sign-on bonus arrangements:

With respect to cash payments, such as a relocation stipend or sign-on bonus, in my view a stay-or-pay provision can only be considered fully voluntary if employees are given the option between taking an up-front payment subject to a stay-or-pay or deferring receipt of the same bonus until the end of the same time period. Only in this way can employees who anticipate possibly engaging in protected concerted activity avoid becoming indebted to their employer without a significant financial downside. If the only alternative was to decline the cash payment outright, that “choice” would be illusory. . . .

In addition, the memo urges that the remedies for an unlawful “stay-or-pay” provision should be the same as an unlawful non-compete, as they both restrict employment mobility.  Therefore, the General Counsel’s position is that the posting requirement for a violation should include notice that individuals will be entitled to damages if they show that: (1) There was a vacancy available for a job with a better compensation package; (2) they were qualified for the job; and (3) they were discouraged from applying for or accepting the job because of the stay-or-pay provision. If the employer attempted to enforce an unlawful “stay-or-pay” provision, there will be additional remedies, such as the employee’s legal fees or compensation for damage to their credit.

The GC memorandum offers employers a 60-day window to “cure” pre-existing stay-or-pay provisions that advance a legitimate business interest by altering the provisions’ terms to conform with the requirements set forth above. Stay-or-pay provisions that do not adhere to the General Counsel’s requirements will be subject to prosecution after December 6, 2024.

What Employers Should Do

While the memorandum is not binding on the Board, it does provide direction to the NLRB regional offices to investigate and prosecute unfair labor charges. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect the current Board to give careful consideration to the General Counsel’s arguments and recommendations as cases involving these provisions and agreements come before the Board in the future. How receptive to these sweeping changes the federal courts and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will be, remains to be seen.

Employers should carefully consider the arguments and opinions laid out in the memo when evaluating the need for non-compete agreements with different categories of employees, the terms of those agreements and the specific business interests that the agreements are designed to protect in light of the prospect of expansive remedies for current and former employees bound to non-compete agreements.

Similarly, as to “stay-or-pay” arrangements, employers would be well served to consult with legal counsel to evaluate their existing agreements in light of the General Counsel’s new, far-reaching perspective on these common benefit terms, including consideration of the 60-day window (until December 6, 2024) to modify existing “stay-or-pay” provisions, to assess the risks of future unfair labor practice claims.

On Sept. 4, 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation requiring public employers to notify employees if their disciplinary records are requested as part of a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. This legislation applies to all entities covered by FOIL and went into effect as of Sept. 4, 2024.

This legislation amends Section 87 of the Public Officers Law by adding language which states: 

All agencies subject to the requirements of [the Public Officers Law] shall develop a policy regarding providing a notification to public employees in the event that the agency is responding to a request for such employee’s disciplinary records. 

Employers previously had no obligation to notify a public employee that their disciplinary records were the subject of a FOIL request. This legislation aims to promote recruitment and retention of individuals by providing them with knowledge that an individual or outside entity requested to review their disciplinary records.

Some aspects of the policy required by this legislation may be subject to bargaining if you have employees represented by a union. If you require assistance with drafting or negotiating a policy, please contact Emily Fallon, Alyson Mathews, any member of Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

On September 5, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Retail Worker Safety Act (A 8947 / S 8358) into law.  It requires certain New York retailers to adopt safety measures to address and prevent workplace violence.

Read More >> New York Enacts Retail Worker Safety Act Addressing Workplace Violence in Retail Settings

On Nov. 22, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the “Freelance Isn’t Free Act” (the Act or FIFA), which was amended on March 1, 2024. The Act is codified in Article 44-A of the New York General Business Law. Article 44-A of the General Business Law creates several protections for freelance workers retained as independent contractors. The Act is intended to ensure that freelance workers receive timely compensation for all services performed. The law goes into effect on Aug. 28, 2024.

The Act Applies to “Freelance Workers” and “Hiring Parties”

Subject to specified exceptions, the Act defines freelance workers as “any natural person or organization composed of no more than one natural person, whether or not incorporated or employing a trade name, that is hired or retained as an independent contractor by a hiring party to provide services in exchange for an amount equal to or greater than eight hundred dollars, either by itself or when aggregated with all contracts for services between the same hiring party and freelance worker during the immediately preceding one hundred twenty days.” In short, a freelance worker is any individual hired to provide services of $800 or more as part of a one-time transaction or over the course of several transactions with the same hiring party in the preceding 120 days.

Individuals engaged in the practice of law, licensed medical professionals, construction contractors, and sales representatives as defined by Section 191-a of the Labor Law, are excluded from the definition of freelance worker.

The Act broadly defines “hiring party” as “any person who retains a freelance worker to provide any service,” except local, state, and federal governments. Given the breadth of this definition most individuals and organizations that hire independent contractors to provide services will need to comply with the Act’s requirements.

The Act’s Primary Requirements

The Act imposes several requirements for hiring parties engaging freelance workers. As discussed in greater detail below, the main requirements pertain to written contracts, timely payment and anti-retaliation. The Act also creates an administrative complaint procedure for freelance workers whose rights have been violated as well as a private right of action.

Written Contract

Most significantly, the Act requires a hiring party that retains the services of a freelance worker to reduce the contract to writing. Written agreements must include:

• the name and mailing address of both parties;
• an itemization of all services to be provided by the freelance worker, the value of services to be provided, and the rate and method of compensation;
• the date on which payment by the hiring party is due or the mechanism by which the due date for payment will be determined; and
• the date by which the freelance worker must provide a list of services rendered under the contract in order to ensure timely payment.

The Act explicitly states that freelance workers and hiring parties may not waive the rights provided under the Act, and any contract provision attempting to do so shall be void and unenforceable.

A copy of the written contract must be furnished to the freelance worker (either physically or electronically) and must be retained by both parties. The hiring party must retain a copy of the contract for a minimum of six years. Though not explicitly stated, the Act suggests that the burden of preparing the written contract falls on the hiring party.

Upon request, hiring parties must also make their contracts with freelance workers available to the attorney general. The failure to produce a contract upon request carries significant consequences, including a presumption that the terms presented by the freelance worker are the agreed upon terms.

Model contracts will be made available on the Department of Labor’s website.

Timely Payment

The Act requires that freelance workers be paid for their services in a timely manner. For purposes of the Act, this means that freelance workers must be paid on or before the date compensation is due under the terms of the contract; or if the contract does not state when payment is due, payment must be made within 30 days of completion of the freelance workers’ services.

Once a freelance worker has begun performing services under the contract, the hiring party may not require that the freelance worker accept less pay than agreed upon, as a condition of timely payment.

Discrimination and Retaliation Prohibited

The Act prohibits discrimination and retaliation against freelance workers who exercise or attempt to exercise their rights under the Act.

Avenues for Redress

The New York State Attorney General is authorized to investigate alleged violations of the Act and to provide appropriate remedies. The Attorney General may bring an action on behalf of the State to enjoin a hiring party from engaging in acts that violate FIFA and to obtain restitution for affected freelance workers.

The Act separately creates a private right of action for aggrieved freelance workers. Such claims may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction for up to two or six years, depending on the nature of the alleged violation. Claims alleging violations of the written contract requirement may be brought for up to two years. Claims alleging violations of the timely payment requirement or the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions may be brought for up to six years.

Penalties

In the event that the Attorney General pursues such a civil action, civil penalties may be assessed against the hiring party in the amount of $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation and $3,000 for a third or subsequent violation. Where there is evidence of a pattern or practice of violations under the Act, civil penalties may be imposed of not more than $25,000.

The damages and penalties available to a plaintiff for violations of the Act depend on the nature of the violation. For example:

• a hiring party’s failure to provide timely payment per the terms of a contract may result in double damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs and other remedies as appropriate;
• a civil penalty of $250 may be imposed as a result of a hiring party’s failure to provide a freelance worker with a written contract; and
• a freelance worker who prevails on a retaliation claim under the Act, may be entitled to statutory damages equal to the value of the underlying contract for each violation, in addition to other damages.

New York City’s Act

For those residing and doing business in New York City, the FIFA requirements noted above may not be entirely unfamiliar. The passage of FIFA follows New York City’s enactment of similar legislation in 2017. In fact, FIFA is largely modeled after the New York City Freelance Isn’t Free Act (the City Act), which also requires written contracts and timely payment.

The terms “freelance worker” and “hiring party” are defined similarly under FIFA and the City Act, except that the construction contractor exception is not recognized under the City Act’s definition of freelance worker.

Similar to FIFA, the City Act requires a written contract whenever a hiring party retains the services of a freelance worker and the contract has a value of $800 or more either by itself or when aggregated with all contracts for services between the same parties in the preceding 120 days. The terms that must be included in such a written contract are similar to the requirements under FIFA, except that the City Act does not require freelance workers to provide a list of services rendered under the contract in order to ensure timely payment.

Both FIFA and the City Act also contain identical provisions regarding: (i) the timeliness of payments to be made to freelance workers; and (ii) the prohibition of discrimination or retaliation against freelance workers who exercise their rights under applicable law. Like FIFA, the City Act creates a private right of action and uses the same two and six year limitation periods described above.

The key differences between FIFA and the City Act include FIFA’s record retention requirement and its requirement that the hiring party furnish a copy of the written contract to the freelance worker. The City Act is silent on these matters. The City Act also establishes its own administrative complaint process, through which freelance workers may file complaints with the City’s Office of Labor Policy & Standards.

Though FIFA and the City Act are largely coextensive, FIFA specifically states that it shall not be construed or interpreted to override or supplant any of the provisions of the City Act.

Conclusion

Individuals and organizations that engage the services of freelance workers should prepare to comply with the Freelance Isn’t Free Act requirements by reviewing internal processes for engaging the services of freelance workers and independent contractors before the effective date of Aug. 28, 2024. Among other things, this includes preparing written contracts that comply with the requirements set forth above when contracting with covered freelance workers.

If you have any questions about the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, or any of the information contained in this memo, please contact Rebecca Kimura, Hannah Redmond or the Bond attorney with whom you are in regular contact.

The FTC’s noncompete ban (16 C.F.R. § 910-1.6) is no more, at least for the time being. On Aug. 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Hon. Ada Brown, U.S.D.J.), in Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 24-cv-986, struck down the FTC’s noncompete ban, which was set to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. The District Court’s Memorandum and Opinion precludes the FTC’s noncompete ban from going into effect nationwide.

In its Memorandum and Opinion, the District Court determined that the FTC lacked the statutory authority to promulgate substantive rules relating to the prevention of unfair methods of competition and that the FTC’s noncompete ban was arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the District Court concluded that the text and structure of the FTC Act compel the determination that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition. As a result, the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the noncompete ban.

The District Court further found that the FTC failed to present sufficient evidence supporting the noncompete ban. Specifically, because no state has enacted a ban as wide-sweeping as the FTC’s noncompete ban, the studies referenced by the FTC which analyzed state noncompete bans did not support the FTC’s universal noncompete ban. Moreover, the FTC’s evidence in support of the noncompete ban was based on factual situations specific to each state and did not, in turn, support a universal, nationwide ban. Finally, the District Court determined the FTC failed to sufficiently address alternatives to issuing the noncompete ban, such as, for example, restrictions on the use of non-competes for low wage workers. Thus, the District Court held that the FTC’s noncompete ban was arbitrary and capricious.

The FTC will likely appeal the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – the appellate court encompassing Texas. Based on its history, it is likely the Fifth Circuit will affirm the District Court’s decision striking down the FTC’s noncompete ban. However, the FTC still has a sliver of hope for its noncompete ban in a case pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which recently denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding the FTC did have the authority to make substantive rules relating to the prevention of unfair methods of competition and demonstrated a sufficient evidentiary basis for the rule, analyzed here. Given this, the FTC’s noncompete ban may very well end up before the United States Supreme Court. The question remains, however, when will it get there and how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue.

As it stands, the FTC’s noncompete rule is no more and will not go into effect on Sept. 4, 2024. This means that the enforceability of non-competes will continue to be analyzed under applicable state law, which, in New York, requires a non-compete to be reasonable in geographic and temporal scope and no broader than necessary to achieve a legitimate business interest. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and provide updates as they become available.

For any questions about this issue, please contact Bradley A. Hoppe, Kevin G. Cope or any attorney in Bond’s litigation or labor and employment practices or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.