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.
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.
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:
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.
Inconsistent conduct is not dispositive. The court emphasized that “even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”
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.
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:
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.
Inconsistent behavior alone is insufficient. Employers should not assume that deviations from religious practices defeat a claim.
Mixed motives do not negate religious beliefs. The presence of mixed motives does not eliminate legal protection.
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.
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.
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.
On Nov. 26, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction barring New York State from enforcing the recent legislative amendment that gave the New York Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) jurisdiction over private sector labor relations matters in New York. The Court found that federal law preempted the State’s action and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).
As we previously reported (here and here), earlier this year Section 715 of the New York Labor Law was amended to provide coverage for private employees that are traditionally covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by granting authority to PERB to oversee labor disputes in the private sector unless the NLRB had affirmatively obtained a court order establishing jurisdiction. The legislation enabled PERB to certify new union representatives without elections, adjudicate unfair labor practices, and exercise authority over new and previously negotiated collective bargaining agreements.
Two lawsuits to challenge the legislation were quickly filed. The NLRB sued New York to protect its jurisdiction. That matter remains pending. At about the same time, Amazon.Com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) filed suit to enjoin the prosecution and investigation of an unfair labor practice charge filed with PERB under the new law.
In granting the injunction, the federal court recognized that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” which means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted. In the context of private sector labor relations, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that when an activity is arguably subject to regulation under the NLRA, the States must defer to the exclusive competence of the NLRB and, as such, States are prohibited from setting forth standards of conduct inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the NLRA and from providing their own regulatory or judicial remedies for conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by the NLRA. The Court in the Amazon matter rejected all of New York State’s arguments to create an exception to these established principles and defend the legislative amendment. Given that Amazon faced an immediate risk of parallel and potentially inconsistent proceedings from the state and federal regulatory schemes, the Court found there was irreparable harm justifying an immediate injunction.
While an appeal is expected, the current result is very good news. In the NLRB’s action, PERB had already agreed to stay any proceedings initiated against private sector employers. It is now enjoined from enforcing the New York law against private sector employers. This action, however, does not impact employers already subject to PERB’s jurisdiction, including public employers and agricultural employers.
As a result, it is far less likely that unions will file representation petitions or unfair labor practice charges with PERB, and instead address complaints through the NLRB. Currently, the NLRB remains without a quorum; however, the NLRB’s Regional offices and General Counsel’s office are active again following the government shutdown and have restarted conducting elections, issuing complaints, investigating charges, holding hearings and issuing interim ALJ decisions.
If you have any questions regarding these developments, please contact Tom Eron, Sam Wiles, or the Bond attorney representing you or your organization.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Reviewing scheduling policies to confirm adherence to notice and consent requirements.
Training managers on premium pay obligations and prohibited scheduling practices.
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.
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed regulation in the Federal Register that aims to fundamentally reshape the annual H-1B cap lottery process. Under the current lottery system, each lottery registration carries the same chance of being selected, regardless of the wage offered for the position. The proposed rule would, instead, prioritize candidates based on wage levels as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s four-tier prevailing wage system. If the published version of the proposed rule becomes final, these changes to the H-1B lottery system could significantly affect employer sponsorship and hiring strategies, particularly for early career professionals and entry-level roles.
As noted above, the selection process used in the existing H-1B lottery system is entirely random. In the proposed rule, the DHS introduces a weighted system whereby the number of times a beneficiary is entered into the lottery would depend upon the wage level associated with the offered position. For example, beneficiaries offered a Level IV wage – the highest wage level identified in the DOL’s Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) framework, would receive four (4) entries. Those individuals offered a wage at the Level III rate would receive three (3) entries, while Level II beneficiaries would receive two (2) entries and Level I beneficiaries only a single entry, respectively. This approach aims to provide beneficiaries with higher wage offers significantly greater odds of selection, thereby shifting the H-1B lottery process away from a purely random allocation model.
Under the proposed rule, employers would be required to identify the standard occupational classification (SOC) code, the prevailing wage level, and the area of intended employment at the time of the H-1B lottery registration. When a petition is ultimately filed, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would also require supporting documentation to confirm the accuracy of the wage level claimed. According to the proposed rule, the USCIS would reserve the right to deny or revoke an H-1B petition if the agency determines that an employer misrepresented a position’s wage level to increase a beneficiary’s selection odds in the lottery, or if the wage offered in the H-1B petition is lower than the offered wage identified during the H-1B lottery registration process. At the same time, the proposed rule provides the USCIS with flexibility to acknowledge and recognize that legitimate business reasons may necessitate wage changes between the H-1B lottery registration and subsequent H-1B petition filing, such as a shift in the intended worksite. In such cases, the proposed rule would permit the agency to accept changes when and where consistent with a bona fide job offer.
The Sept. 24th proposed rule also contains specific guidance for situations involving multiple H-1B worksites or multiple employers. Where a position requires an H-1B beneficiary to work in more than one location, the employer must use the lowest corresponding wage level when registering for the H-1B lottery. If multiple employers submit registrations on behalf of the same candidate, the candidate will be entered into the lottery according to the lowest prevailing wage level submitted. The USCIS acknowledges the possibility that some employers may decide to offer higher wages to certain candidates / intended H-1B beneficiaries to increase their chances of selection. In those situations, the agency takes the position that those wage offers serve as a reflection of the employer’s valuation of the individual’s skills and contributions, even where the wage is not strictly tied to the formal skill level of the role.
The DHS will accept public comments on this proposed rule for a 30-day period. The proposed rule will not be finalized until the federal rulemaking process is complete. Typically, the rulemaking process requires several months and often involves revisions based on stakeholder feedback. The earliest possible implementation of this proposed rule would be during the FY 2027 H-1B cap season, which is expected to open in March 2026. Court challenges to a final rule remain a strong possibility and could delay or prevent implementation of these proposed changes to the H-1B lottery selection process.
If the proposed rule is finalized as currently drafted, employers may face restricted access to entry-level talent. Candidates offered Level I wages – often recent graduates or junior professionals – would be at a considerable disadvantage as compared to their peers who may receive higher wage offers. Employers may also experience pressure to raise wages as a means to improve lottery selection chances, potentially altering internal compensation strategies. At the same time, organizations should anticipate a heightened compliance burden, as they will need to ensure that prevailing wage levels are carefully determined, documented and defensible in the event of government scrutiny.
The changes set forth in the proposed rule raise important questions about how employers prepare for the upcoming H-1B lottery season and/or whether to reassess their hiring strategies. For example, employers should begin reviewing their anticipated candidate pools for the FY 2027 season, including the assessment of potential prevailing wage levels for upcoming roles and the evaluation of potential wage adjustments, if any, to improve the chances of selection.
The proposed rule proffered by the DHS signals a significant departure from the H-1B lottery system that employers have relied upon for decades. Organizations that depend on the H-1B work visa program, particularly those who hire large numbers of entry-level workers, should closely follow developments and prepare to adapt accordingly if this current version of the proposed rule is finalized.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact any member of our Immigration Practice Groupor the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.
