By: Adam P. Mastroleo and Gavin T. Gretsky

On Dec. 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S03072 (the Amendment) into law, amending the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act to restrict the use of consumer credit history for employment purposes. With this amendment, New York joins ten other states and several major cities, including New York City, which have comparable laws currently in place. The Amendment will go into effect on April 18, 2026.

Restrictions on the Collection and Use of Consumer Credit History

Under the Amendment, employers, labor organizations and employment agencies are prohibited from requesting or using an applicant’s or employee’s consumer credit history for employment purposes or discriminating against an applicant or employee in any way related to their employment based on their consumer credit history.

Consumer credit history is defined as “an individual’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or payment history as indicated by: (1) a consumer credit report, (2) credit score or (3) information an employer obtains directly from the individual regarding (i) details about credit accounts, including the individuals number of credit accounts, late or missed payments, charged-off debts, items in collections, credit limit or prior credit report inquiries or (ii) bankruptcy judgments or liens.”

The Amendment also defines a consumer credit report to include “any written or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency that bears on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or credit history.”

Exemptions under the Amendment

While the Amendment’s definitions and prohibitions regarding the use of consumer credit history are broad, there are limited exemptions for certain employers and positions, including:

• An employer that is required by state or federal law, or a self-regulatory organization to use an individual’s consumer credit history for employment purposes;
• Positions such as peace officers or police officers or positions with law enforcement or in an investigative function with a law enforcement agency;
• Persons in a position with a high degree of public trust subject to background investigation by a state agency;
• Persons in a position that requires security clearance under state or federal law;
• Persons in a position that requires the employee to be bonded under state or federal law;
• Persons in non-clerical positions that have regular access to trade secrets, intelligence information or national security information;
• Persons in positions that have signatory authority over third party funds or assets valued at $10,000 or more or that involve a fiduciary responsibility to the employer with the authority to enter financial agreements valued at $10,000 or more on behalf of the employer; and
• Persons in positions with regular duties that allow the employee to modify digital security systems established to prevent the unauthorized use of the employer’s or client’s networks or databases.
   

However, employers should be aware that these exemptions are narrow and most only apply to specific positions, not to the employer or industry as a whole.

Impact on Local Laws

The Amendment also specifically states that it does not alter or exempt any employer, labor organization or employment agency duty to comply with any local law, ordinance or regulation regarding the use of consumer credit history where such laws provide greater protection for employees than those laid out in the Amendment.

This is particularly relevant for New York City employers because New York City’s Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act (SCDEA), which has been in effect since 2015, already places stringent restrictions on employers regarding the acquisition and use of consumer credit history for employment purposes. While the Amendment and SCDEA largely mirror each other, there are some differences. For example, SCDEA contains certain reporting requirements for exemptions that are not included in the Amendment. Therefore, New York City employers should be aware of both laws and be prepared to comply with whichever law offers the greatest protection to employees.

Restrictions on Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies

Aside from restrictions on employers, the Amendment also places limits on what kind of information consumer credit reporting agencies may provide under the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under the Amendment, reporting agencies are prohibited from providing consumer credit history in a consumer report for employment purposes unless one of the statutory exemptions listed above applies to the employer or position for which the information was requested.

Restrictions on State and Municipal Agencies

Lastly, under the Amendment, state and municipal agencies may not request or use the consumer credit history of an applicant, licensee or permittee for licensing or permitting purposes unless the agency is required to do so by law. However, the Amendment does not limit an agency’s ability to consider other information for licensing or permitting purposes such as an applicant’s, licensee’s, registrant’s or permittee’s failure to pay any tax, fine, penalty or fee that the person has admitted liability for, or for which a judgment has been entered by court or administrative tribunal, or any tax that a government agency has issued a warrant, lien, or levy on property.

While the Amendment does not take effect until April 18, 2026, employers should consider what steps they need to take to comply with these new restrictions. This includes reviewing current consumer credit history practices and identifying the applicability of any exemptions. As always, if you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Adam Mastroleo, Gavin Gretsky or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

By: Robert F. Manfredo, Rebecca J. LaPoint, and Joseph B. Vogt

On Dec. 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Trapped at Work Act (the Act) into law. This legislation, effective immediately, impacts agreements and policies that require employees to reimburse certain payments if they leave before the passage of a stated period of time.

What Does This Mean?

As a result of the Act, employers can no longer require employees or job candidates to sign an “employment promissory note” (i.e., an instrument, agreement or contract provision that requires a worker to pay the employer a sum of money if the worker leaves such employment before the passage of a stated period of time), as a condition of employment.  

This change to New York’s labor law is expansive. The statute is clear that any future employment agreements demanding these types of payments as a condition of employment are unenforceable. In addition, according to the legislative history accompanying the bill, any existing agreements with “stay or pay provisions” are also unenforceable.

Who Does This Affect?

The Act broadly defines "employer" to include individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, the government and any organized group that hires or contracts with a worker for employment purposes. The term “employer” also includes any subsidiary or entity that is associated with an employer that provides training to workers.

“Worker” is also broadly defined to include an individual who is permitted to work for or on behalf of an employer, including employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices and even sole proprietors who provide services on behalf of an employer.

What Are The Exceptions?

Under the Act, the prohibition on employment promissory notes or agreements specifically allows for the following types of employer reimbursements:

• Repayment of payroll advances unrelated to training.
• Payment for employer‑provided property sold or leased to the worker.
• Agreements tied to sabbatical leave for educational personnel.
• Programs agreed to under a collective bargaining agreement.
   

What are the potential consequences for violations?

Employers that do not comply with the Act can face civil penalties from the New York State Department of Labor, ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 for each violation. Additionally, attorneys’ fees may be awarded to employees who successfully defend against an employer’s attempt to enforce a prohibited agreement in court. Importantly, employers should be aware that if these prohibited promissory notes are a part of a larger employment agreement, only the promissory note portion is invalid. This means that the remainder of an otherwise enforceable employment agreement will not be affected.

What’s Happening Now?

Upon approving the Act, Governor Hochul flagged ambiguities in the original bill and conditioned her approval on legislative amendments in the next session. On Jan. 6, 2026, the legislature introduced amendments that, if approved by the Governor, would permit the following:

• Create a pathway for employers to seek repayment of tuition, fees and required materials for a “transferable credential” (i.e., widely recognized degrees, licenses, certificates or documented skill credentials that enhance employability across the industry and are not employer-specific)
• Permit repayment of certain nonperformance incentive payments, such as sign on bonuses or relocation assistance, subject to carveouts favoring employees who are terminated for reasons other than misconduct or who were misled about job duties.
   

This means that, if adopted, employers would be permitted to seek repayment from employees for “transferable credentials” under the amended Act as long as:

• the agreement is memorialized in a separate document;
• the credential is not a condition of employment;
• there is a strict cap on the recoverable amount;
• the agreement provides for prorated amount that will not be accelerated upon separation; and
• no repayment is owed if the employee is terminated, unless they were fired for misconduct.
   

The amended version of the Act maintains the same penalty range for potential violations of $1,000 to $5,000 for each employee violation. However, the amended language would require that the Commissioner consider the size of the employer, the gravity of the violation, previous violations and the employer’s good faith basis to believe that their actions were compliant when assessing the penalty.

Next Steps

Although the amended legislation is pending, it is crucial that employers remember that the current iteration of the Trapped at Work Act as signed by Governor Hochul on Dec. 19, 2025, is currently effective. Employers should review their existing agreements and practices to ensure compliance to avoid legal exposure.  If you have questions about the Trapped at Work Act, please contact Robert Manfredo, Rebecca J. LaPoint, Joseph Vogt, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

By: Samuel G. Dobre, Jason F. Kaufman and Kymberley Walcott-Aggrey

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified how courts must evaluate an employee’s claimed religious beliefs when assessing requests for religious accommodations. In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 143 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025), the court provided guidance on the evidentiary standards governing claims arising from COVID-19 vaccination mandates and related religious accommodation requests and/or exemptions. The decision emphasizes that disputes over the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs are typically fact-intensive and should not be resolved by courts at summary judgment where genuine credibility issues exist.

Factual Background

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the Bank) implemented a policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to medical and/or religious exemptions. Both named plaintiffs, Diaz and Gardner-Alfred, sought religious exemptions, which the Bank denied, and they were terminated thereafter.

Both plaintiffs sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Title VII, each of which requires proof that their objections stemmed from “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and that the Bank’s vaccination policy burdened or conflicted with those beliefs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims, concluding that neither plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to establish the sincerity of their beliefs.

The District Court’s Ruling

As to Plaintiff Gardner-Alfred, the district court found that her claimed 20-year membership in the Temple of the Healing Spirit was unsupported by any meaningful details. She could not identify any other members, any events she attended or otherwise verify her involvement. The court also pointed to evidence that she had purchased a generic vaccine-exemption package available online. Based on the record, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find her beliefs sincere.

The district court reached a similar conclusion with respect to Plaintiff Diaz, emphasizing evidence of secular motivations for avoiding vaccination, inconsistent conduct with her stated beliefs and the fact that her pastor declined to support her exemption request. In the alternative, the district court ruled that no substantial religious conflict existed because the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines do not contain, and are not manufactured with, aborted fetal cells.

The Second Circuit’s Split Decision

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Plaintiff Gardner-Alfred but vacated and remanded as to Plaintiff Diaz’s claims.

For Plaintiff Gardner-Alfred, the court described the case as one of the “rare circumstance[s]” in which a plaintiff’s testimony was so contradictory, incomplete and unsupported that it raised “only a sham issue of fact,” and no reasonable jury could find that her beliefs were sincere.

Plaintiff Diaz’s case was different. The Second Circuit held that while the evidence could raise doubts about her sincerity, the evidence did not compel a single conclusion. Instead, the record permitted competing reasonable inferences, which must be resolved by a jury—not a court.

In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit emphasized several key principles:

1. Mixed motives do not defeat sincerity. A jury could find that Plaintiff Diaz had both secular and religious objections to the vaccine yet still acted based on a sincerely held religious belief.
2. Inconsistent conduct is not dispositive. The court emphasized that “even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”
3. Clergy disagreement is not determinative. Plaintiff Diaz’s pastor refused to sign her exemption letter, but the court held that sincerity turns on the employee’s own beliefs – not the views of her religious leaders.
4. Use of a third-party religious organization’s letterhead does not automatically undermine sincerity. A jury could view Plaintiff Diaz’s persistence after her pastor’s refusal as evidence supporting sincerity.

Because reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions, the Second Circuit held that the question of Plaintiff Diaz’s sincerity must be decided by a jury at trial, rather than by the court on summary judgment.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

The Second Circuit’s opinion provides several signals and lessons for employers evaluating religious accommodation requests:

1. Summary judgment on sincerity will remain rare. Courts will only resolve sincerity as a matter of law in exceptional cases with overwhelming evidence of insincerity.
2. Inconsistent behavior alone is insufficient. Employers should not assume that deviations from religious practices defeat a claim.
3. Mixed motives do not negate religious beliefs. The presence of mixed motives does not eliminate legal protection.
4. Employers should document but not overreach. Employers should ask appropriate clarifying questions and carefully document the interactive process, while avoiding any attempt to assess the validity or correctness of an employee’s religious doctrine. Courts will closely scrutinize employer conduct that appears to cross the line from evaluating sincerity into acting as a theological gatekeeper.
    

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Samuel Dobre, Jason Kaufman, Kymberley Walcott-Aggrey or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

By: Paige M. Roseman

Effective Dec. 5, 2025, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) was amended to expressly prohibit retaliation against employees who request a reasonable accommodation.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the NYSHRL, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for engaging in a protected activity. Retaliation can include actions such as termination, demotion, reduction in hours, or any other adverse employment action taken in response to engagement in a protected activity.

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under these statutes, a plaintiff must show that: (1) they engaged in “protected activity;” (2) their employer was aware that they participated in such activity; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action based upon their protected activity; and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

Courts have disagreed on whether a request for reasonable accommodation qualifies as protected activity to satisfy the first element of a retaliation claim:

• ADA: Courts have long recognized that requesting a workplace accommodation constitutes protected activity.

• NYCHRL: Following a November 11, 2019 amendment, the statute explicitly provides that a reasonable accommodation request is protected activity.
• NYSHRL (prior to the 2025 amendment): Courts held that such requests did not qualify as protected activity. See, e.g., Jordan v. City of New York, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214421 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 22, 2024); D’Amico v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 558, 558-59 (1st Dept. 2018); McKenzie v. Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 A.D.3d 676, 677-78 (2d Dept. 2006).
   

The 2025 amendment to the NYSHRL overturns that precedent. The statute now explicitly provides that requesting a reasonable accommodation is protected activity for purposes of retaliation claims. Consequently, any retaliatory action taken in response to such a request constitutes an unlawful discriminatory practice under the NYSHRL, bringing the statute into alignment with the ADA and NYCHRL.

As always, if you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Paige M. Roseman or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

By: Nicholas P. Jacobson and Anthony A. Levitskiy

Under New York Labor Law (NYLL) Section 191, employers are required to pay “manual workers” on a weekly basis. As we previously reported here, there is currently a split among courts as to whether manual workers have a private right of action to pursue pay frequency violations.

NYLL Section 198 was amended in May 2025 to eliminate liquidated damages as a remedy available to employees for an employer’s first violation of NYLL Section 191, as long as the employer paid employees on a regular schedule and at least semi-monthly (for more information, please see here). For first-time weekly pay violations, the penalty is now limited to lost interest based on delayed payment, regardless of whether the violation occurred before or after the amendment. 

The constitutionality of the amendment is now being challenged in a Southern District of New York case, Bryant v. Buffalo Exchange. In this case, plaintiffs claimed that Buffalo Exchange violated NYLL Section 191 by paying them on a biweekly basis. Consistent with the law in place when the alleged violation took place and when plaintiffs filed the complaint, they sought liquidated damages in the amount of wages that were not timely paid. After the law was amended, Buffalo Exchange filed its second motion for a partial judgment on the pleadings to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for liquidated damages under NYLL Section 191 based on the amendment to NYLL Section 198(1-a). Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that NYLL Section 198(1-a) is unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) it exceeds the limitations on executive budgeting in the New York Constitution; and (2) it violates the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution to the extent it applies retroactively to a liquidated damages claim that was filed prior to its enactment.

Plaintiffs’ first argument challenges the amendment on the basis that it was improperly introduced by Governor Hochul during the budget process. They assert that the governor cannot introduce non-budget-related legislation during the budget process, and that the amendment is non-budget-related legislation because it does not specifically relate to any appropriations in the budget. In their second argument, Plaintiffs assert that the amendment violates the Due Process Clause because there is no rational basis to justify its retroactive application.

On Nov. 14, 2025, the Court certified the question of NYLL Section 198(1-a)’s constitutionality to the New York State Attorney General, who will have 60 days to weigh in. If NYLL Section 198(1-a) is found unconstitutional, employers who paid manual workers on a less-than weekly basis could once again be faced with claims by employees seeking liquidated damages for delayed payments.

We will continue to provide updates regarding this case. If you have any questions regarding these developments, please contact Nicholas P. Jacobson, Anthony A. Levitskiy or an attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you normally work.

By: Samuel G. Dobre, Jason F. Kaufman, and Timothy Bouffard*

The recently proposed Delivery Protection Act has now been sponsored by a supermajority of New York City Council members. While the bill has not yet been voted on, the broad support makes passage highly likely. The proposed law would introduce significant new requirements for package-delivery warehouses, which include facilities where companies such as Amazon and other delivery services receive goods and distribute them for final delivery to NYC consumers. The legislation is designed to enhance safety, improve working conditions, and increase oversight of the growing “last-mile” delivery industry. 

What Types of Facilities Are Covered?

The law applies to “last-mile delivery facilities”—which are defined as:

• Warehouses or storage sites that receive goods and then ship them to customers in NYC.

The law would not apply to retail stores where most of the space is devoted to in-person sales. 

Key Changes Businesses Need to Know

1.  Facilities Must Now Get a City License

To operate in NYC, these warehouses will need a license from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. 

When applying, a facility must report any past violations related to:

• Workplace safety
• Road or traffic safety
• Environmental rules
• Deceptive business practices
• Worker-protection laws

The license would cost $500 per year and will be valid for two years.

2.  Workers Cannot Be Hired Through Staffing Agencies

A major change under the proposed law is the prohibition on hiring warehouse workers through staffing agencies or subcontractors for core operational roles.  If a business ends a contract with a staffing agency, it must offer jobs to the affected workers before hiring additional personnel.

3.  Mandatory Training for All Warehouse Employees

The proposed law will require that all warehouse workers receive “last-mile facility training” within their first 92 days of employment and once a year thereafter. 

The training will cover, among other topics:

• Worker rights
• Employer responsibilities
• Safe driving and delivery practices
• Safety around new technology, including automated or robotic vehicles

What This Means for Businesses

• Staffing must shift to direct hiring: if a warehouse relies on contractors, the business will need to adjust its staffing practices
• Increased compliance obligations: licenses, disclosures and required training mean new administrative tasks
• Elevated safety expectation: annual training will become a key part of compliance. 

Bond will continue to monitor relevant updates regarding this legislation and provide additional updates as appropriate. If you have any questions or would like any additional information regarding this legislation, employer updates or other legal developments, please contact Sam Dobre, Jason Kaufman or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

*Special thanks to associate trainee Timothy Bouffard for his assistance in the preparation of this memo. Timothy is not yet admitted to practice law.

By: Colin P. Smith and Stephanie H. Fedorka

As part of this year’s budget, New York State added Section 139-m to the State Finance Law, which requires bidders on competitive state procurements to certify that they have a written policy addressing gender-based violence and the workplace and that such policy meets certain requirements.  The law went into effect on Nov. 5, 2025.

The statute requires competitive bids to contain the following statement:

“By submission of this bid, each bidder and each person signing on behalf of any bidder certifies, and in the case of a joint bid each party thereto certifies as to its own organization, under penalty of perjury, that the bidder has and has implemented a written policy addressing gender-based violence and the workplace and has provided such policy to all of its employees, directors and board members.  Such policy shall, at a minimum, meet the requirements of subdivision 11 of section five hundred seventy-five of the executive law.”

Applicable New York State procurement guidelines define a “bidder” as “any individual, business, vendor or other legal entity, or any employee, agent, consultant or person acting on behalf thereof, that submits a bid in response to a solicitation.” 

While this certification is mandatory for all bids that are legally required to be competitive, it may also be required for bids on noncompetitive contracts at the discretion of the public entity awarding the contract.  Accordingly, employers who contract with New York State agencies should review new or renewed contracts for any new requirements or obligations, including the new requirements under State Finance Law Section 139-m. 

A bid that fails to comply with the new requirements will not be considered or be awarded the contract. The law also states that if a bidder cannot make the required certification of compliance with the new requirements, the bidder shall state so and provide a signed statement detailing the reasons for noncompliance with the submitted bid. 

The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (“OPDV”) published guidance, including what gender-based violence and the workplace policies must contain, which specifically include, at a minimum, the following provisions:

Share Information: Employers must provide information regarding gender-based violence where employees can see and access it. This includes displaying the NYS Domestic and Sexual Violence Hotline information and a gender-based violence and the workplace poster.  When possible, materials should be available in an employee’s primary language.

Refer Employee Survivors to Services: The policy must require that the employer refer employees who disclose current or past victim status to the NYS Domestic and Sexual Violence Hotline and/or a local service provider.  For bidders outside of New York State, referrals should be made to a local provider or statewide hotline.  While referrals are required to be provided by the employer, it is not required for the employee to access services.

Prohibit Retaliation: The policy must include a clear statement that discrimination or retaliation against employees who identify as victims or survivors of gender-based violence is prohibited.

Comply with Laws: The policy must follow state law.  As a reminder for employers based in New York State, this means that the policy and employers must follow the SAFE Leave Act, which is more commonly referred to by employers as the NYS Paid Sick Leave Law, which includes qualifying reasons and protections for employees seeking to use accrued leave time for reasons related to domestic violence. The policy and employers must also follow the New York State Human Rights Law, which includes protections against sexual harassment as well as protections for victims of domestic violence (including the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to victims of domestic violence for reasons related to the domestic violence). Employers should also follow any other relevant laws and regulations that may apply. 

Offer Implementation Support: The guidance also reminds employers that OPDV is able to assist employers in developing and implementing this policy.  Per the guidance, employers must provide information to supervisors and human resources about this technical assistance from OPDV.  

The OPDV guidance states that covered employers should distribute the gender-based violence and the workplace policies to all employees, board members and directors upon hire and annually.

Employers that bid on competitive contracts with New York State should develop and implement a compliant gender-based violence and the workplace policy, consistent with the guidance from OPDV. Employers that contract or may contract with New York State agencies should also review any new or renewed contracts with such agencies, or other updated information from said agencies for any changes in expectations, including adoption and incorporation of this provision mandating development and implementation of a gender-based violence and the workplace policy. 

OPDV has published a model policy, but we encourage employers to carefully review and customize any policy to fit their workplace. 

While neither the law nor the guidance currently requires employers to provide training on this topic, employers should nevertheless consider training supervisors, human resources personnel and others who will interface with employees so that they understand the protections afforded to victims of domestic violence and comply with the employer’s relevant policies.  

If you have any questions regarding compliance or would like assistance drafting your gender-based violence and the workplace policy, please contact Stephanie Hoppe Fedorka, Colin Smith or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

By: Stephanie Hoppe Fedorka and Rachel Kreutzer

On September 25, 2025, the New York City Council passed significant amendments to the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA or the Act) and delivered the bill to New York City Mayor Eric Adams on that same date. Because Adams did not veto the bill within the 30-day window, it automatically became law and will go into effect in 120 days, on or around February 22, 2026. 

The amendments make significant changes to the existing ESSTA, as well as the New York City Temporary Schedule Change Act (TSCA). A brief summary of some of the key changes include: recognition of additional, new qualifying reasons for use of ESSTA sick/safe leave related to child care, caregiving, workplace violence, subsistence benefits or housing and public disasters, as well as  a new obligation for employers to provide additional unpaid sick time and changes related to the alignment of the TSCA with the ESSTA. 

By way of brief background, the ESSTA requires covered employers to provide sick/safe leave to employees. The amount and nature of the sick/safe leave that must be provided depends on employer size. Employers with 100 or more employees must provide up to 56 hours of paid sick/safe leave each year; employers with five to 99 employees or employers with four or fewer employees an a net income of $1 million or more must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick/safe leave each year; and employers with four or fewer employees and a net income of less than $1 million must provide up to 40 hours of unpaid sick/safe leave each year. Employers with one to 99 domestic worker(s) must also provide 40 hours of paid sick/safe leave each year. Employees must accrue sick/safe leave at a rate of at least 1 hour for every 30 hours worked, but an employer may choose to front-load the sick/safe leave each year. 

Recently, the ESSTA was also amended to require employers of any size or net income to provide a separate bank of 20 hours of paid prenatal leave in a 52-week period. 

Under the sick/safe leave provisions of the ESSTA, employees may currently use accrued sick/safe leave for the employee’s own care, treatment or medical care, or to care for a qualifying family member (including treatment or medical care of the family member), for the closure of the employer’s place of business or the employee’s need to care for a child whose child care provider has closed due to a public health emergency, as well as to seek assistance (including legal or social services) or take other measures related to domestic violence, sexual offenses, stalking or human trafficking when the employee or the employee’s family member is a victim of domestic violence, unwanted sexual contact, stalking or human trafficking.  

Expanded uses:  In addition to the current list of qualifying reasons for use of sick/safe leave under the ESSTA briefly summarized above, the amendments allow employees to take available sick/safe leave under ESSTA for additional recognized reasons including:

• Public Disaster – Employees may use ESSTA leave for a public disaster, defined as a “fire, explosion, terrorist attack, severe weather conditions or other catastrophe that is declared a public emergency or disaster by the president of the United States, the governor of the State of New York, or the mayor of the City of New York.” This also includes direction by a public official to remain indoors or avoid travel during a public disaster that prevents an employee from reporting to their work location.
• Caregiving Responsibilities – Employees may use ESSTA leave to provide care to a minor child or care recipient when the employee is a caregiver for the minor child or care recipient. 
• Subsistence Benefits/Housing – Employees may use ESSTA leave to initiate, attend or prepare for a legal proceeding or hearing related to subsistence benefits or housing to which the employee or the employee’s family member or care recipient is a party. Leave may also be taken by the employee to take actions necessary to apply for, maintain or restore subsistence benefits or shelter for the employee or their family member or care recipient. 
• Workplace Violence – Employees may use ESSTA leave for certain reasons, including but not limited to seeking legal or social services, meeting with a district attorney or filing a complaint with law enforcement, related to when the employee or the employee’s family member has been the victim of workplace violence. This change specifically adds workplace violence to the “safe leave” provisions of the ESSTA. 
   

New Additional Unpaid Sick Time: The amendments also require employers to provide all employees with an additional thirty-two (32) hours of unpaid sick/safe leave upon hire and on the first day of each benefit year. This leave must be front-loaded, meaning that the full amount must be made immediately available for use and can be used for any qualifying ESSTA purpose. This unpaid ESSTA time does not need to be carried over to the following benefit year. 

TSCA: The law effectively realigns the requirements of the TSCA with the ESSTA. Currently, the TSCA entitles employees to request up to two temporary schedule changes each year for qualifying “personal events.” Personal events include the need to care for a minor child or care recipient, the need to attend a legal proceeding or hearing related to public benefits or the employee (or the employee’s family member, minor child or care recipient), or any other reason recognized under the ESSTA. Employers must either grant these temporary schedule change requests or provide the requesting employee with unpaid leave. 

The qualifying reasons previously recognized for temporary schedule change requests under the TSCA have been incorporated as protected, qualifying reasons under the ESSTA as explained in greater detail above. Significantly, under these changes, employers will no longer be required to grant an employee’s temporary schedule change request as previously required by the TSCA.

However, employers must respond to an employee’s request as soon as practicable. Employers may propose an alternative temporary change, but employees are not required to accept such proposed alternatives. Notably, employees may still request such changes and are protected from retaliation for doing so under the TSCA. 

What’s Next

Employers should review their existing sick leave and Temporary Schedule Change Act policies and revise them to reflect the significant changes in the ESSTA by the effective date. As a reminder, the ESSTA requires employers to maintain a written policy with specific minimum information related to ESSTA leave. 

Employers should also ensure that accruals for paid and unpaid ESSTA leave are tracked and reported on a pay statement or other written documentation provided to the employee each pay period. 

In further preparation for compliance, employers should consider providing training to supervisors, managers or human resources professionals that are responsible for attendance enforcement within their organizations. This will mitigate the risk of non-compliance, including retaliation claims, due to any misunderstandings of employees’ rights and protections under the ESSTA and the TSCA. 

It is likely that the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the agency responsible for enforcement of the ESSTA, will issue updated guidance and other materials, including a new “Workers’ Bill of Rights” notice and the “You Have a Right to Temporary Changes to Your Work Schedule” notice, reflecting these changes.  Employers should monitor for the updated guidance and notice. 

Employer are encouraged to work with legal counsel to understand their new obligations and tailor policies and practices to fit their goals and objectives while maintaining compliance with the new amendments.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Stephanie Hoppe Fedorka, Rachel Kreutzer or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

By: Samuel G. Dobre, Mallory A. Campbell, and Samuel P. Wiles

The sun rises, the alarm blares and Sonny & Cher’s “I Got You Babe” plays on the radio. It’s Groundhog Day— or, for New York City employers, another new bill from the city council introducing additional compliance requirements.

On Oct. 9, 2025, the New York City Council passed, with overwhelming support, two bills that together would establish a framework requiring private employers in the city to report pay and demographic data for purposes of determining whether there are any disparities in compensation based on gender, race or ethnicity. While the bills currently await action by the mayor, it is widely expected that they will become law—either through approval by the incoming administration or by a veto override.

The first bill, Int. No. 982-A,  requires private employers with 200 or more employees to submit a pay report annually. In determining the number of employees, all employees, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary, would be counted. While many employers have a fluctuating number of employees, the count is “determined by counting the highest total number of employees concurrently employed at any point during the reporting year.”

The bill will require the mayor to designate a city agency to develop a standardized form for employers to submit reports. Once the standardized form is published, employers will be required to submit the pay report to the agency within the next year and every year thereafter. The city will allow employers to submit the information anonymously. Upon submitting the required data to the designated agency each year, employers must also sign a statement certifying the accuracy of the information contained in their report, which must identify the employer. Employers that fail to comply with the Bill’s requirements would be subject to penalties. While a first time offense can be remedied within 30 days of a summons indicating a violation, if the employer does not remedy the violation, it would face an initial civil penalty of $1,000. For each subsequent violation, the employer would face a civil penalty of $5,000. There does not appear to be a cap on how many times the employer would be subject to this penalty.

The second bill, Int. No. 984-A,  would work in tandem with Int. No. 982-A, requiring the designated agency to create a pay equity study no later than one year after employers submit their reports, and annually thereafter. This study must evaluate the data from the pay reports to assess disparities in compensation based on gender, race or ethnicity, identify prevalent industries with disparities and track trends in occupational segregation. Moreover, the report would be done in a manner that does “not reveal any particular covered employer’s or employee’s identifying information.”

Given the annual reporting and the level of detail required, the bills are expected to impose additional administrative burdens on employers. Employers who have high turnover rates or seasonal employees may face obstacles in complying with this bill to the extent it may be difficult to gather, organize and report data accurately. 

While not yet law, these bills are expected to take effect soon and we will continue to track their progress. Employers should remain aware of existing federal reporting obligations and consider taking steps to prepare for the collection and reporting of data under these potentially forthcoming requirements. 

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

By: Sam G. Dobre, Jason F. Kaufman, Lindsay McCarthy*

New York City continues to set the standard nationwide in expanding workplace protections for service industry employees. Recent legislative updates have strengthened scheduling rights for retail and fast-food workers under the City’s Fair Workweek Law and introduced new safeguards for app based and grocery delivery workers. Employers operating in these sectors should carefully review their scheduling and pay practices, as noncompliance can result in substantial penalties and enforcement actions.

Fair Workweek Requirements

New York City’s Fair Workweek Law—part of a growing national trend toward predictable scheduling—has a stated aim of providing service sector workers more stable and transparent work hours. The law applies separately to fast food and retail employers, each with specific obligations.

Fast Food Employers

Fast food employees must receive a regular schedule identifying their expected workdays and hours. Employers must:

• Provide schedules 14 days in advance, both posted at the workplace and distributed directly to employees (individual notification may take the form of a personal message such as email, text message or a push notification in a scheduling app).
• Communicate schedule changes in writing as soon as possible by posting the changed schedule conspicuously in the workplace and individually notifying the affected employees by personal message or push notification in a scheduling app.
• Pay premium compensation for last minute changes—ranging from $10 to $75 per change, depending on timing and impact.
• Pay a $100 premium for “clopening” shifts (back-to-back closing and opening shifts).
   

Retail Employers

Retail employers must:

• Provide work schedules at least 72 hours in advance, both posted at the workplace and distributed to employees via personal message or push notification on a scheduling app.
• Obtain written employee consent to add or cancel shifts within 72 hours of a shift start.
• Avoid on call scheduling, which is prohibited under the law.
• Pay fines of up to $300 per affected employee, with higher penalties for repeat violations.
   

Recordkeeping

All covered employers must retain for three years records of:

• Employee schedules and hours worked;
• Any written consent to schedule changes; and
• Copies of all schedules provided.
   

Failure to maintain these records creates a presumption in favor of the employee in any dispute or enforcement action. For wage and hour best practices, employers should maintain all time and schedule records for at least six (6) years.

Protections for App Based and Grocery Delivery Workers

New York City was the first city in the U.S. to establish minimum pay standards and working conditions for app based food delivery workers. The law sets a minimum pay rate of $21.44 per hour and imposes additional requirements on third party delivery platforms.

In September 2025, the City Council overrode Mayor Adams’ veto to extend these protections to grocery delivery workers, previously excluded from coverage. The updated law also requires:

• Apps to provide insulated delivery bags;
• Improved bathroom access at restaurants and delivery hubs; and
• Greater transparency about how tips and pay are calculated.
   

Compliance Takeaways

These developments underscore New York City’s ongoing focus on scheduling and treatment of service and gig economy workers. Employers in the retail, fast food, and delivery sectors should take proactive steps to ensure compliance, including:

1. Reviewing scheduling policies to confirm adherence to notice and consent requirements.
2. Training managers on premium pay obligations and prohibited scheduling practices.
3. Verifying that recordkeeping procedures satisfy the City’s three year retention standard (and six year for wage and hour best practices).
    

Failure to comply can expose employers to civil penalties, private litigation and reputational risk. Employers are encouraged to consult experienced counsel to ensure their scheduling and pay practices align with current city requirements and enforcement priorities.

If you have any questions or would like any additional information regarding best practices, policy updates, or other legal developments, please contact Sam Dobre, Jason Kaufman or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.

*Special thanks to associate trainee Lindsay McCarthy for her assistance in the preparation of this memo. Lindsay is not yet admitted to practice law.

Effective June 19, 2024, New York State Labor Law Section 206-c requires all private and public employers to provide 30 minutes of paid break time for employees to express breast milk when the employee has a reasonable need to express breast milk. Prior to enactment of this law, New York State employers were only required to provide reasonable unpaid break time for breast milk expression.

The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) has issued guidance FAQs on the amended law. NYSDOL’s guidance provides that paid break time must be permitted as often as an employee reasonably needs to express breast milk. NYSDOL has issued a template Policy on the Rights of Employees to Express Breast Milk in the Workplace which provides:

HOW OFTEN DURING THE WORKDAY CAN I TAKE BREAKS TO PUMP BREAST MILK? The number of paid breaks an employee will need is unique to each employee. Your employer must accommodate you whenever you reasonably need to take a break to express milk.

Employees must also be permitted to use existing paid break or meal time if they need additional time for breast milk expression beyond the paid 30 minutes, and employers may not require employees to make up this missed work time. Employees are entitled to paid breaks for breastmilk expression for up to three years following childbirth.

Employers are required to provide written notice of breast milk expression rights to all employees at the time of hire and then annually thereafter. Additionally, notice must be provided when an employee returns from childbirth leave.

Employees must provide reasonable advance notice of their need for lactation breaks. As a reminder, employers must continue to provide a room or other location to express breast milk once an employee submits a written request to their direct supervisor or an individual designated by the employer to process lactation room requests. Employers must respond to lactation room requests in writing within five days.

Lactation rooms must have the following:

• Be close to an employee’s work area
• Provide good natural or artificial light
• Be private – both shielded from view and free from intrusion 
• Have accessible, clean running water nearby
• Have an electrical outlet (if the workplace is supplied with electricity)
• Include a chair
• Provide a desk, small table, counter or other flat surface
• Ability to store pumped breast milk in a refrigerator if one is available

Employers are prohibited from discriminating in any way against an employee who chooses to express breast milk in the workplace.  

If you have any questions about the information presented in this news alert, please contact Laura Harshbarger, Lance Willoughby-Hudson, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

On May 20, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) announced a final rule updating the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). The amended rule (29 CFR 1910) better aligns with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).

Read More >> OSHA Issues Final Rule on HazCom Standard