Read More >> New York Enacts New Protections Against False Impersonation of Public Sector Unions And Addresses Manipulative Campaign Efforts 

Earlier this year, Bond’s labor and employment attorneys reported on proposed legislation that would significantly expand New York employees’ rights to access and respond to information contained in their personnel files. That legislation is now law, creating new obligations for New York employers.

On Sept. 9, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul signed A.2107/S.3460 into law, granting current and former employees new rights concerning their personnel records. Among other things, the new law gives employees the right to access their personnel records, requires employers to provide notice when certain “negative information” is placed in a personnel record and an opportunity for employees to respond and permits employees to add certain information to their records. The law takes effect on Nov. 8, 2026 (60 days after signing).

Access to Personnel Records

The new law gives current and former New York employees the right to review their personnel records up to two times per calendar year. Upon receiving a written request, employers must furnish the requested records within five business days.

Employers must also maintain a complete copy of an employee’s personnel record, without deletions or changes, from the employee’s date of hire through three years after the employee’s termination.

Notification of “Negative Information”

Employers must notify an employee within ten days after placing “negative information” in their personnel records. Negative information includes information affecting the employee’s qualification for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or potential discipline.

An employer and employee may agree to correct or remove disputed information. If they do not reach an agreement, employees may submit a written statement responding to negative information and the employer must include that statement in the employee’s personnel record.

Enforcement and Remedies

The law allows employees to seek injunctive relief to remove information from their personnel records that their employer knew or should have known was false.

The New York Attorney General is empowered to seek civil penalties ranging from $500 to $2,500 against violators of the statute. In addition, workers who experience discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights under the law have a private right of action.

What Employers Should Do Now

With the Nov. 8, 2026 effective date approaching, New York employers should begin taking steps now to prepare for their new obligations. In particular, employers should:

1. Establish a process for personnel file requests: identify who will receive and respond to employee requests and ensure that personnel records can be located, reviewed and produced within the law’s five-business-day deadline.
2. Review what is maintained in personnel files: employers should understand what documents and information are being placed in personnel records.
3. Create a procedure for “negative information”: employers should establish a process for identifying information subject to the law’s notice requirement and ensuring that employees receive the required notice within 10 days after the information is placed in their personnel records.
4. Train managers and HR personnel: supervisors should understand that placing disciplinary or other negative information in an employee’s personnel record may trigger the new notice requirements.
5. Review existing policies and forms: employers should update personnel record, disciplinary and recordkeeping policies and consider whether procedures should be revised to account for the new requirements.
    

Employers should use the period before November 8 to identify gaps in their current practices and implement a workable process for responding to personnel record requests and complying with the law’s new notice and recordkeeping requirements.

For questions or additional information regarding the new law and its requirements, please contact Jason Kaufman, Samuel Dobre, Rachel Kreutzer, any attorney in Bond’s Labor and Employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you regularly work.

The New York Legislature recently passed a bill that would amend the Cannabis Law and the Labor Law regarding labor-related requirements for cannabis businesses. The bill, which is currently before the governor for action, would repeal the requirements for license holders and applicants to have labor peace agreements in place, impose new public disclosure obligations regarding ownership and workforce data (including wage ranges), and establish a Cannabis Industry Wage Board to study and recommend minimum wages for the industry, similar to what has been put in place for farm laborers.

Key Statutory Changes

Repealing Labor Peace Agreement Requirements

The bill would eliminate labor peace agreements as express statutory conditions across several key provisions of the Cannabis Law. Cannabis businesses would no longer be required to enter into or maintain labor peace agreements as a condition of obtaining or retaining cannabis licenses, certifications or registrations. However, the bill would preserve broader labor law compliance considerations, including review of New York labor law violations and protection for existing collective bargaining agreements.

Transparency Requirements Related to Ownership and Worker Conditions

The bill would require each applicant or renewal applicant to provide the full ownership structure of the licensee and any management service agreements, including the full ownership structure of any company providing those services. Applicants also would be required to submit a publicly available report identifying the range of salary and hourly rates for each job title and the average number of hours scheduled or offered for each position.

Establishing a Wage Board

The bill would establish a Cannabis Industry Wage Board within the Labor Law framework. Under New York’s Minimum Wage Law, the minimum wage may be raised administratively by the commissioner of labor upon the recommendations of a wage board. The new wage board would consist of one representative of the licensed cannabis industry, one representative of the New York State AFL-CIO and one member of the general public appointed by the commissioner to serve as chairperson. The wage board would be required to hold its first hearing by March 1, 2027.

The wage board would have meaningful investigatory and procedural powers, including the authority to conduct public hearings, consult with cannabis employers and workers and their representatives, administer oaths, issue subpoenas for testimony and records, and take depositions.

The wage board would be required to report to the governor and Legislature with recommendations regarding minimum hourly wages and prospective wage increases for workers in cultivation; processing and packaging; distribution; and retail and delivery. The board also could recommend wages for additional classifications, recommend an industrywide minimum wage for workers not captured within a specific classification, or determine that wages in the industry are already adequate.

When Would the Bill Take Effect?

If enacted, the bill would take effect immediately, except that the disclosure obligations and the Cannabis Industry Wage Board provisions would take effect Jan. 31, 2027. The repeal of labor peace agreement provisions would become operative immediately upon enactment. The wage board’s first hearing would then need to occur by March 1, 2027, and its report would be due by Dec. 31, 2027.

Labor and Employment Implications

While the bill remains subject to the governor’s approval, the bill, if enacted, would remove labor peace agreements as express statutory conditions of cannabis certification, registration, renewal and licensure. Employers that have already entered into labor peace agreements, however, should review them with counsel, as existing agreements remain governed by their own terms, including any ongoing obligations, notice requirements or termination provisions.

Public reporting of pay ranges by job title and average hours by position could subject wage setting, scheduling practices and compensation consistency to increased scrutiny as they are more easily identifiable to regulators, workers, organized labor, competitors and the public. Such increased scrutiny may impact negotiations and pay-rate demands.

The wage board provisions may have the most significant wage-and-hour consequences. The bill does not set a new cannabis-specific minimum wage; rather, it creates a process under which a wage board would hold hearings, collect evidence and issue recommendations regarding minimum hourly wages, prospective increases and sector-specific classifications. Because the wage board may recommend different wage rates for cultivation; processing and packaging; distribution; and retail and delivery, cannabis employers may eventually face a more segmented industry-specific wage structure than under general minimum wage rules. Any such set wages also would become the floor for any collective bargaining negotiations.

More broadly, the proposed Cannabis Wage Board follows the Legislature’s use of similar boards for farm laborers and fast-food workers, signaling a continued pattern of industry-specific wage-and-hour regulation and raising questions about which sector may be next for such treatment.

If you have questions about these proposed amendments, please contact Erin M. Callahan, Rebecca J. LaPoint, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you regularly communicate.

On May 28, 2026, the Associated General Contractors of New York State (AGC of NY) and several other trade associations filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York seeking injunctive relief to block enforcement of New York’s new prevailing wage law governing off-site custom fabrication. On June 8, 2026, the court entered a consent order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the law pending further proceedings.

Background

In December 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation amending New York Labor Law Section 220 to expand the definition of “public work” to include certain “custom fabrication” performed off-site, even when the fabrication takes place outside New York. As we previously reported, the law was originally set to take effect on June 18, 2026, and applies to contracts put out to bid on or after that date.

Prior to this amendment, New York regulators advised that prevailing wage requirements applied to off-site fabrication only if the work was “usually and customarily performed at the project site.” Under that framework, off-site fabricators were often treated as material suppliers and fell outside the statute's coverage.

The new law significantly changes this landscape. As originally enacted, the amendment broadly defined “custom fabrication” as including “but not limited to” the following categories:

• Exterior and interior wall panel systems;
• Woodwork;
• Electrical systems;
• Plumbing systems;
• Heating, cooling, ventilation or exhaust duct systems;
• Rebar cages; and
• Mechanical insulation.

The original version also required that the covered work constitute a “significant portion of the building or work” as delivered for installation or assembly.

Before the law’s effective date, the legislature amended the law in important ways. The precise effect of these amendments is not entirely clear and may reflect both narrowing and expansion of the statute’s scope in different respects. On the one hand, the legislature appears to have intended to limit the scope of coverage, while on the other hand, the amendments also indicate a broader intended reach.

Regarding the first point, the revised version removed the “but not limited to” language, which suggests that the statute may now be limited to the specifically enumerated categories as “custom fabrication” under the law. The amendments also included limiting exemptions for certain transportation and affordable housing projects. Regarding the second point, the amendment eliminated the “significant portion” requirement, which may broaden the reach of the statutory provision.

Under the current version of the statute, covered “custom fabrication” is defined by three criteria: (1) the work must involve fabrication of one of the enumerated categories—exterior or interior wall panel systems, woodwork, electrical systems, plumbing systems, heating, cooling, ventilation or exhaust duct systems, rebar cages or mechanical insulation; (2) the work must be “solely and specifically designed and engineered for a specified public work project”; and (3) the work must not involve components, portions, modules or materials that are “otherwise stocked or readily available absent a specified public work project.”

The Federal Court Challenge

AGC of NY, joined by several national and regional trade associations and construction companies, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the amended law.

The complaint alleges that the custom fabrication law is extraterritorial, protectionist, unconstitutionally vague, practically impossible to administer and disruptive to supply chains and existing collective bargaining arrangements. These issues were previously identified in our prior update.

More specifically, AGC of NY and its fellow plaintiffs argue that the law impermissibly reaches beyond New York’s borders by regulating manufacturers for fabrication work performed entirely outside the state, in violation of constitutional principles governing both interstate and foreign commerce. The complaint also raises constitutional due process and equal protection concerns, contending that key statutory terms such as “custom fabrication” and “solely and specifically designed and engineered” are impermissibly vague, and that exemptions for transportation, affordable housing and modular construction arbitrarily exclude materially similar work. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that the law effects an unconstitutional regulatory taking of established business interests and impairs existing collective bargaining agreements in violation of the federal Contract Clause.

The plaintiffs initially filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, with a hearing scheduled for June 16, 2026—just two days before the law was set to take effect. However, on June 8, 2026, the parties entered a consent order voluntarily agreeing to the preliminary injunction, and to a revised briefing schedule on the merits. Under the consent order, the effective date of the amendment is “suspended and stayed” unless and until the court enters a subsequent order denying the plaintiffs’ emergency motion, granting a motion to dismiss or otherwise terminating the suspension.

 

Significantly, the order provides broad interim relief. The state is barred from enforcing any aspect of the amendment, and no public owner—including agencies, municipalities and school districts—or private owner of projects subject to New York prevailing wages is required to comply with the amendment or include its terms as a condition of their contracts. Similarly, no general contractor, subcontractor, fabricator or other project participant, regardless of location, is required to comply with the amendment or any of its conditions. The consent order extended the briefing schedule through late August 2026. We will continue to monitor developments in this litigation closely.

What Employers Should Do Now

In light of the consent order, the custom fabrication amendment will not take effect on its originally scheduled date of June 18, 2026, and no party is currently required to comply with its terms. Enforcement is suspended until the court rules on the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenge. However, the injunction does not guarantee that the law will ultimately be struck down. A court ruling in defendants’ favor could revive the amendment, potentially with limited advance notice. Employers should therefore continue to assess the law’s potential impact:

• Audit current and upcoming public work contracts to identify off-site fabrication components;
• Evaluate whether any fabrication work meets the statutory definition of covered “custom fabrication”;
• Develop contingency plans for wage compliance in case the injunction is lifted and the law takes effect; and
• Stay informed about further developments in the federal court challenge, including the briefing schedule (defendants’ opposition due July 21, 2026; plaintiffs’ reply due August 18, 2026) and any subsequent court rulings.

Although the preliminary injunction suspends the amendment’s effective date, the outcome of the litigation remains uncertain. Impacted businesses should work with legal counsel to assess their potential compliance obligations if the amendment is ultimately upheld. Further, contractors should keep in mind that, even under New York’s prior enforcement position (which presumably remains in effect), certain off-site custom fabrication work may be covered under the state’s prevailing wage law. If you have questions about the legislation discussed above or the current status of the federal litigation, please feel free to contact Andy Bobrek or Rebecca J. LaPoint or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice whom you are regularly in contact.

On May 19, 2026, the New York Assembly passed S.3460, a bill that, if signed into law, would expand employee access to personnel records, require notice of negative information placed in those records and an opportunity to respond, and allow employees to add certain information to their records. The bill passed the state Senate in April and is modeled after Massachusetts’ Personnel Record Law. Prior attempts to pass similar legislation, including in 2025, were unsuccessful. If Governor Kathy Hochul signs S.3460 into law, employers will have 60 days from the date of enactment to implement policies and procedures necessary to comply with the new requirements.

Access to Personnel Records

The legislation would grant all New York employees, both public and private, the right under New York State Labor Law to access their workplace personnel records twice per year. Under the law, employers would be required to furnish records within five business days of receiving an employee’s written request.

Notification of “Negative Information”

If enacted, employers would be required to notify an employee within ten days after placing “negative information” in the employee’s personnel record. Under the bill, negative information includes information affecting the employee’s qualification for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or potential for discipline. Employees would also be permitted to submit a written statement in response to any such “negative information,” which must also be included in their personnel file.

Enforcement and Remedies

The legislation would also permit employees to seek injunctive relief to remove information from their personnel records that their employer knew or should have known was false.

The New York Attorney General would be authorized to seek civil penalties ranging from $500 to $2,500 against violators of the proposed statute. Employees facing discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights under the statute would also have a private right of action.

What Employers Should Consider Now

Employers should review their employee records access policies and monitor legislative developments to assess how this legislation may affect operations. The bill will next be delivered to the Governor for consideration. Employers are encouraged to consult with counsel to understand how these changes may affect their operations and to ensure policies remain compliant and aligned with business needs.

Employers should also consider providing additional HR training regarding these potential new requirements and should be prepared to update employee handbooks and implement standardized procedures to ensure timely notice when “negative information” is added to an employee’s personnel file. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jason Kaufman, Samuel Dobre, Rachel Kreutzer or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

On Dec. 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S8338 into law amending the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) to expressly recognize “disparate impact” claims in employment discrimination claims.

While New York courts had already recognized disparate impact liability, this amendment formally codifies the standard and aligns the NYSHRL with federal law (Title VII) and the New York City Human Rights Law.

What This Means

The amendment imposes liability where a facially neutral policy or practice has discriminatory effect on a protected group—regardless of any discriminatory intent. In other words, employers may face liability even absent a discriminatory motive if a policy disproportionately impacts a protected class. The law applies to conduct occurring on or after Dec. 19, 2025.

Legal Framework

Under the new subdivision of Executive Law §296:

• Employee’s Burden: a plaintiff must show that a specific policy or practice has a disparate impact on a protected group, either in fact or predictably.
• Employer’s Burden: if a disparate impact is shown, the employer must establish a “legally sufficient justification” by demonstrating that:

1. the policy is job-related and consistent with a business necessity; and
2. the business necessity cannot be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. The justification must be supported by evidence—not speculation.

• Employee’s Rebuttal: even if the employer meets this burden, an employee may still prevail by showing that a less discriminatory alternative exists.
   

Practical Takeaways for Employers

• Employers should exercise caution in their increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in personnel or business decisions, as algorithmic screening, hiring, firing, promotion, discipline or compensation systems may unintentionally produce statistically disparate outcomes that give rise to disparate impact liability if not validated as job-related, consistent with business necessity and assessed for less discriminatory alternatives.
• Policies that appear neutral on their face can still create liability if they disproportionately affect protected groups.
• Employers should ensure that key policies (e.g., hiring criteria, background checks, compensation structures, scheduling practices) are tied to legitimate business needs and supported by evidence.
• Where possible, employers should evaluate whether less discriminatory alternatives are available.
• Documentation supporting the business necessity of policies will be critical in defending potential discrimination claims.
   

Next Steps

Given the expansion and codification of disparate impact liability, employers should consider proactively reviewing their employment practices, policies and job classifications to identify potential risk areas and ensure compliance with evolving state and local standards.

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

On Feb. 13, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul signed an amended version of the Trapped at Work Act (the Act) into law. When signing the Act in December 2025, Governor Hochul flagged ambiguities in the original bill and conditioned her approval on the Legislature making amendments during the current legislative session. The amended Act resolves these ambiguities and places employers on more balanced footing regarding their obligations under the law.

The Act applies to “employment promissory notes,” which the Act defines as any instrument, agreement or contract provision that requires an employee to pay the employer if the employee’s employment relationship with a specific employer terminates before a stated period of time passes. The Act provides that requiring an employment promissory note as a condition of employment is unconscionable, against public policy, unenforceable and null and void. However, if an employment promissory note appears within a larger agreement, the remainder of the agreement remains intact.

Key Changes

Definitions of Employer and Employee

The Act now defines “employee” as any person employed for hire by an employer. This definition significantly limits the scope of the Act, as its initial iteration applied broadly to “workers," which included independent contractors and others.

The amendment revised the definition of “employer” to align with the Labor Law's standard definition (i.e., any person, corporation, limited liability company or association that employs any individual) and expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions.

Additional Exceptions

The amended Act clarifies that certain agreements will not be rendered void and unenforceable, including:

• Agreements seeking 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 requirements), provided the agreement contains the specific language discussed below.
• Agreements requiring the repayment of a financial bonus (e.g., sign on bonuses), relocation assistance or other non-educational incentive, payment or benefit that is not tied to specific job performance. However, repayment cannot be required if the employer terminated the employee for any reason other than misconduct or if the employer misrepresented the job’s duties or requirements to the employee.

For employers to seek repayment from employees for tuition and educational materials, for "transferable credentials," an agreement between the employer and employee must satisfy the following requirements:

1. the agreement is set forth in a written contract that the employer offers separately from any employment contract;
2. the credential is not a condition of employment;
3. the agreement specifies the repayment amount before the employee agrees to the contract, and the repayment amount does not exceed the actual cost to the employer;
4. the agreement provides for prorated repayment over the required employment period that is proportional to the total repayment amount and the length of the required employment period without accelerating repayment if the employee leaves; and
5. the employer may not require repayment if the employer terminates the employee, unless the employer terminated the employee for misconduct.

Notably, the statute does not define “misconduct.” Employers that contemplate seeking repayment on this basis should apply well defined, consistently enforced standards and carefully document termination decisions.

Additional exceptions include: (1) repayment for any property that the employee voluntarily purchased or leased; (2) agreements tied to sabbatical leave for educational personnel; and (3) agreements entered into pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

What Happens if Employers Violate the Act?

An employee or prospective employee who is aggrieved under the Act may file a complaint with the Commissioner of Labor.  The amended version of the Act maintains the same penalty range of $1,000 to $5,000 for each employee violation. However, the amended language now requires the Commissioner to consider the size of the employer, the gravity of the violation, previous violations, and the employer’s good faith basis for believing that the employer's actions were compliant when assessing the penalty. Importantly, each violation constitutes a separate offense, so employers should be aware of the potential financial exposure for repeated violations of the Act.

When is the Amended Law Effective?

The Act, as amended, changes the effective date from “immediately” to one year after the effective date of the 2025 law. Accordingly, the Act becomes effective on Dec.19, 2026.

Next Steps

Although the amended Act is not effective until Dec. 19, 2026, employers should develop a plan to review any potentially affected agreements and policies and make any necessary revisions before the effective date.

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 regularly communicate.

Throughout 2025, New York enacted several significant amendments to the state’s labor law, impacting contractors and subcontractors working on covered prevailing wage projects.

Expanding Coverage of Off-Site Custom Fabrication

On Dec. 20, 2025, Governor Hochul signed legislation amending New York’s prevailing wage law to expand coverage of off-site fabrication work.

Prior to this amendment, New York state regulators advised that prevailing wage requirements applied to off-site fabrication only if the work was "usually and customarily performed at the project site." Under this framework, off-site fabricators frequently could be treated appropriately as material suppliers and therefore falling outside the statute's coverage. In recent years, however, there has been a growing number of disputes over the coverage of off-site fabrication on public works projects in New York. The 2025 amendment is expected to put to rest some of these prior issues but may raise other new disputes based on the legislative drafting.

In any event, the new law expressly expands the scope of “public work” to now include certain "custom fabrication" performed off-site, even if that fabrication work takes place in a different state or jurisdiction. This extraterritorial application of the amendment is particularly notable, considering the limited authority and jurisdiction of state regulators in New York.

Nevertheless, under the amendment, workers performing covered off-site fabrication work must be paid the prevailing wage rate and fringe benefits established for the New York county where the project is located. (Note: The amendment appears to exempt projects falling under federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.)

The statute defines “custom fabrication” as work that is solely and specifically designed and engineered for a covered public works building or work. Under the new law, covered custom fabrication includes, but is not limited to:

• exterior and interior wall panel systems;
• woodwork;
• electrical systems;
• plumbing systems;
• heating, cooling, ventilation or exhaust duct systems;
• rebar cages; and
• mechanical insulation.

To be covered custom fabrication, the work must also constitute a “significant portion of the building or work" as delivered for installation or assembly. Under the new law, a "significant portion of the building or work" means portions or modules of the building or work – as opposed to smaller prefabricated components – that are delivered to the project site with minimal construction work remaining, other than the installation and assembly of such portions or modules.

It remains to be seen how effectively these cross-referenced definitions and (at times somewhat vague) terms can be applied in the real world on a construction project.

The amendment also impose new, extensive certified payroll obligations on contractors and subcontractors performing covered off‑site custom fabrication work. Further, the statute requires municipalities and state entities – the project owners – to report the following information to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL): (a) the name and address of off-site fabricators; (b) identification of the custom materials and quantities manufactured; (c) estimated and actual costs of fabricated materials; and (d) the number of workers used in fabrication.

The Governor’s Approval Memo noted an agreement with the legislature to clarify the scope of this bill, including exemptions for certain transportation and affordable housing related projects to mitigate costs associated with these essential projects. So, we expect to see further legislation addressing these points.

This new law becomes effective on June 18, 2026 (180 days from Dec. 20, 2025). In preparation for implementation, business entities should assess the impact and increased costs which will be associated with off-site fabrication work, as well as ensure compliance with heightened certified payroll documentation requirements and anticipate closer bid stage and construction phase scrutiny of whether off-site prefabricated work is covered under New York’s prevailing wage law.

Prevailing Wage Coverage for Delivery and Hauling of Concrete and Asphalt in NYC and Certain Other Counties

On Dec. 12, 2025, Governor Hochul signed legislation, requiring payment of prevailing wages and fringe benefits to drivers who are delivering and hauling concrete and asphalt to and from certain public worksites.

The law applies to covered activities in the five boroughs of New York City, as well as the counties of Nassau, Putnam, Suffolk, and Westchester. Covered activities include delivery, hauling, return trips (whether loaded or empty) and time spent loading and unloading.

(This amendment expands on prior recent changes to Section 220(3-a) of the New York labor law, which extended prevailing wage requirements to the hauling of "aggregates," i.e., sand, gravel, stone, crushed stone, dirt, soil, millings and fill to and from project sites. Historically such hauling had only been covered in limited circumstances.)

The 2025 legislation explicitly extends comparable coverage to now also includes concrete and asphalt hauling in the specified jurisdictions. The law took effect immediately on Dec. 12, 2025.

Contractors, subcontractors and hauling providers engaged in public works in the covered regions must comply with these new requirements. And they should anticipate potential cost impacts, bid adjustments and heightened scrutiny of certified payrolls and hauling arrangements from New York regulators. Among other things, businesses working in this area should consider:

• Updating procurement and contracting workflows to appropriately incorporate the new prevailing wage obligations for concrete and asphalt hauling in the covered jurisdictions;
• Ensuring certified payroll processes capture loading and unloading time and return hauls;
• Reviewing subcontractor and trucking agreements to require prevailing wage compliance and adequate recordkeeping; and
• Revisiting bid pricing, project budgets and schedules to account for the expanded coverage.

New Apprenticeship Requirements for Covered Renewable Energy Systems

Another new law - which took effect immediately upon Governor Hochul’s signature on Sept. 5, 2025 - imposes new apprenticeship requirements on all contractors and subcontractors performing construction work on “covered renewable energy systems,” which include:

• Renewable energy systems (including solar and photovoltaic installations) of 1 MW or greater that receive renewable energy credits;
• Offshore wind supply chain projects receiving funding from the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA);
• Certain “thermal energy networks”; and
• Major utility transmission facilities.

This legislation extends the apprenticeship requirement – previously applicable only to thermal energy networks – to a broader renewable energy sector. For thermal energy networks specifically, the new law additionally requires the use of pre-apprenticeship direct entry providers registered with NYSDOL.

All covered contractors and subcontractors must use apprenticeship agreements as defined under Article 23 of the New York Labor Law. Among other things, such apprenticeship programs and agreements are subject to review and approval from NYSDOL.

This is a significant requirement for many contractors and subcontractors who have limited access to apprentices and approved apprenticeship programs in New York.

The Governor's Approval Memo acknowledged that the immediate effective date "poses challenges" and indicated that the state Legislature agreed to enact subsequent amendments to provide flexibility where apprentice availability may be insufficient. We intend to report on this issue.

Owners, developers and contractors engaged in covered renewable energy projects should verify that all contractors and subcontractors hold compliant apprenticeship agreements for construction work as necessary. For thermal energy network projects, these entities must additionally confirm the use of NYSDOL registered pre-apprenticeship direct entry providers.

We expect further changes to New York’s prevailing wage law in the future. Impacted businesses should work with legal counsel to assess their potential compliance obligations arising under the above amendments. If you have questions about the legislation discussed above, please also feel free to contact Andy Bobrek or Rebecca J. LaPoint.

In April, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Antonyuk v. James, a case challenging many of the restrictions imposed by New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). As a result, the Second Circuit’s Oct. 2024 decision which vacated all but two of the lower court’s injunctions, remains in effect.

The CCIA was passed in July of 2022 following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s more than a century old concealed carry law. In essence, the CCIA modified the requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit and prohibited the possession of firearms in areas deemed “sensitive” or “restricted.”

The passage of the new law prompted numerous constitutional challenges, resulting in many of its provisions being enjoined by district courts. The injunctions were then appealed to the Second Circuit which, in Dec. of 2023, released its decision in Antonyuk v. Chiumento [1].

Although the Second Circuit’s Chiumento decision was nearly identical to its later decision in James, the Supreme Court vacated the decision in July of 2024 and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for further consideration consistent with its decision in United States v. Rahimi.

On remand, the Second Circuit released its decision in Antonyuk v. James, prompting another appeal to the Supreme Court. This time, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Second Circuit’s decision in effect.

In short, the Second Circuit vacated all of the injunctions except as applied to two aspects of the CCIA: (1) the provision requiring firearm license applicants to disclose the names of their current and former social media accounts; and (2) the “restricted locations” provision, to the extent that it made it presumptively unlawful to carry a firearm on private Property open to the general public  unless permission was granted by “clear and conspicuous signage” or express verbal consent. 

The case will now be remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Second Circuit’s opinion. For now, all provisions of the CCIA will remain in effect except for the two provisions that remain enjoined.

It is important to note that the Second Circuit’s review merely assessed the lower court’s injunctions, conducting a narrow analysis of whether the challenged provisions were facially unconstitutional. Therefore, future challenges to the CCIA are inevitable.

We will continue to provide updates regarding this issue. If you have any questions regarding the effects of this legislation, please contact Nicholas Jacobson, Colin Smith, any attorney in Bond’s Labor and Employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

[1] Antonyuk v. Chiumento consolidated four district court cases (Antonyuk v. Hochul from the Northern District of New York; Christian v. Nigrelli, Spencer v. Nigrelli, and Hardaway v. Nigrelli from the Western District of New York). Only the Antonyuk parties appealed to the Supreme Court, so the Chiumento decision as applied to Christian, Spencer, and Hardaway was unaffected by the Supreme Court’s subsequent vacatur.  As a result, the primary difference between the Second Circuit’s decisions in Chiumento and James is that James did not address the injunctions issued in Christian, Spencer, and Hardaway.

It is common practice across the country for employees to be paid every other week or twice per month, because that imposes much less time and manpower on an employer than running payroll weekly. But such a practice can subject certain employers in New York to liability. Section 191 of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) requires employers to pay employees who fall under the broad definition of “manual worker” to pay such employees weekly. For a long time, there was little to no private litigation against an employer who paid such workers biweekly or semimonthly; such employers would simply pay a penalty if cited by the NY Department of Labor.

That changed in 2019 when New York’s Appellate Division, First Department held that a manual worker could bring a suit in court seeking damages for not being paid on a weekly basis. This resulted in a wave of “frequency of pay” litigation claims. The reason is that Section 198 of the New York Labor Law allows individuals to recover liquidated damages up to 100% of the total amount of any unpaid wages. So, for example, a manual worker paid $2,000 biweekly, instead of $1,000 weekly, would seek liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000 for each week not paid weekly—even though the employee received their full pay every other week. Because of New York’s long, six-year statute of limitations for such claims, this created a large amount of liability for any employer that did not pay manual workers weekly.  An employer with a 200 employee workforce could find themselves subject to a $30 million, bankrupt-the-company lawsuit.

Employers were initially hopeful early last year when the Appellate Division, Second Department came to the exact opposite decision of the First Department, finding that a manual worker could not bring a suit in court for a frequency of pay violation. However, this only created a split among the courts that has not been resolved, and the issue has not yet reached the Court of Appeals. Likewise, talks of a legislative fix last year ultimately fizzled out.

However, both the Governor’s office and Legislature took up the issue this year. As we previously reported here, Governor Hochul included legislation amending the damages available under Section 198 of NYLL for frequency of pay violations in her proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year. On May 7, the Education, Labor and Family Assistance (ELFA) budget bill was published, and while it revised some provisions from the Governor’s initial proposal, it still limits the damages of frequency of pay actions.

The bill amends Section 198 of NYLL to clarify that liquidated damages shall not be applicable to violations of the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in Section 191 of NYLL where the employer paid the employee wages on a regular payday, no less frequently than semimonthly. Instead, the bill sets forth that such violations are limited to “lost interest found to be due for the delayed payments of wages calculated at the daily interest rate for each day payment is late based on the annual rate of interest then in effect.” The interest rate is set by the Department Financial Services under Section 14-a of the Bank Law and is currently sixteen percent per annum.

Further, for conduct occurring after the effective date of the amendment, liquidated damages may be sought in an amount equal to one hundred percent of the “total amount of wages found to be due” in a Section 191 frequency of pay violation for employers who had been the subject of one or more findings and orders of a frequency of pay violation.

Finally, the bill states that it “shall take effect immediately and shall apply to causes of action pending or commenced on or after such date”—and it was just signed into law on May 9, and is therefore already in effect.

What does this mean? Immediately, for any pending cases, so long as employees were paid their full pay biweekly or semimonthly, the potential liability will drop drastically. For the hypothetical 200 employee employer described above, the potential liability would drop from about $30 million in liquidated damages to less than $100,000 in interest.  Of course, were an employer to be found liable for a frequency of pay violation in the future and not fix their weekly pay issue, the next time an employer would face on hundred percent liquidated damages of “the total amount of wages found to be due.”

Given the immediate impact this will have on pending cases, it is possible that the law’s provision that it will apply to pending causes of action may be challenged.

Bond continues to follow these developments closely and will continue to provide updates as they occur. Please contact a Bond attorney in the labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you normally work, for questions, concerns and tailored consultation.

Under New York Labor Law Section 191, individuals who fall under the broad definition of “manual worker” must receive their wages weekly. There is currently a split among the courts as to whether manual workers have a private right of action to recover liquidated damages for untimely payments. In Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, the First Department held that manual workers who were paid late had a private right of action under Section 198 of New York Labor Law to recover liquidated damages for up to six years of their wages. Conversely, in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch Inc., the Second Department held that Section 198 does not create a private right of action for late payment when the employee is still paid in full.

Despite the lack of clarity in the law as to whether manual workers have a private right of action, there has been a surge in individual and class-action lawsuits that could expose employers to substantial liability, requiring them to pay employees who were already paid in full, albeit not on a weekly basis. Governor Hochul has included legislation in her proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year to address this issue.

Governor Hochul’s proposed legislation would clarify the damages available to manual workers for untimely payments. First-time violations allow for the recovery of 100% of interest lost due to delayed payments. Second-time violations would allow for the recovery of 300% of the lost interest due to delayed payment. Finally, for all subsequent violations, recovery includes liquidated damages equal to 100% of the total amount of wages due to the employee. This legislation would limit plaintiffs’ recovery of liquidated damages and prevent financial harm to employers who have paid employees the correct amount on a biweekly schedule. If enacted, Section U would take effect 60 days after approval. Similar legislation on how to remedy the frequency of pay controversy was proposed in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but did not pass.

The 2026 budget must be approved by April 1, 2025, and we will continue to provide updates regarding this issue. If you have any questions regarding the effects of this legislation, please contact Nicholas Jacobson, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

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.