On August 12, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed the legislation that was passed by the New York State Assembly and Senate on June 19, 2019, making sweeping changes to the New York Human Rights Law. We previously posted a summary of the significant amendments to the Human Rights Law and the potential impact that these amendments could have on the litigation of discrimination and harassment claims filed with the Division of Human Rights and in court. The legislation does not apply retroactively, so only future claims under the Human Rights Law will be affected.

Read More >> Governor Cuomo Signs Bill Amending the Human Rights Law

If you’ve had occasion to converse with a management-side employment lawyer (and somehow survived it), it seems the edict of documenting performance issues is tattooed on his/her forehead. I must confess in my own supervisor training I have warned that, in essence, “if it’s not in writing, it did not happen” (at least for purposes of trying to get a case dismissed on a motion for summary judgment). I still believe that documentation is always the safest course, but can an employer still fire an employee for a series of undocumented incidents and avoid having to go to trial when the employee disputes them? The Seventh Circuit has answered this question in the affirmative.

Read More >> The Sound of Silence: Seventh Circuit Holds That Undocumented Misconduct is Still Misconduct

New York has for many years had a law on the books that prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee because the employee has complained about an alleged violation of the wage and hour laws.  Specifically, New York Labor Law Section 215 states that an employer may not "discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee" because the employee complained of an alleged violation of the Labor Law or otherwise cooperated with a Department of Labor or Attorney General investigation regarding an alleged violation of the Labor Law.

On July 29, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed legislation amending the statute to specify that the phrase "threaten, penalize, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee" includes threatening to contact or contacting United States immigration authorities or otherwise reporting or threatening to report the citizenship or suspected immigration status of an employee or an employee's family member.  The legislation is effective 90 days after the date on which the Governor signed it.

Read More >> Recent New York Legislation Prohibits Employers From Threatening to Report an Employee's Suspected Immigration Status in Retaliation for Labor Law Complaints

On July 15, 2019, the EEOC issued the final protocols for enhanced EEO-1 reporting. Most private sector employers with 100 or more employees are now required to report, on or before September 30, 2019, pay and hours data on all employees for 2017 and 2018 by job category, gender, race, and ethnicity. Initially launched as part of the Obama administration’s initiative to address pay equity, the EEO-1 Component 2 requirements will impose short term burdens and potential long term risks for many employers.

Read More >> New Federal Pay Equity Reporting Imposed by EEOC -- Bond Webinar to Unpack the Requirements and Obligations

On July 12, Governor Cuomo signed a bill amending the New York Human Rights Law to prohibit employment discrimination based on "traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles."  The term "protective hairstyles" includes, but is not limited to, "such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists."  This amendment took effect immediately upon the Governor's signature.

Read More >> New York Amends the Human Rights Law to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Traits Historically Associated With Race (Such As Hair Texture and Protective Hairstyles)

In 2018, Governor Cuomo signed a State Budget bill that included various provisions addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.  Among those provisions was a prohibition on including in any written contract a clause requiring the submission of sexual harassment claims to arbitration, except where inconsistent with federal law.  On June 26, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, that this New York law prohibiting mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and is therefore invalid.

Read More >> Federal Court Holds That New York Law Prohibiting Mandatory Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims Is Invalid

The other night I found myself in a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu class with a 250-pound musclebound gentleman sitting on my chest trying to do rather unkind things to my neck and vulnerable joints.  While this was certainly not the most opportune time to be thinking about how to parlay this situation into a blog article, it did occur to me that the crushing weight on my chest and the attendant loss of oxygen therefrom, is how many of my clients must feel in the day-to-day trenches of the modern-day digital world of human resources.

The situation also gave me pause (again, not at the best time) to think about what life lessons I have learned from many years of training in different styles of martial arts (other than how to tape deformed fingers and that a bag of frozen peas works wonders on bruised ribs).  Upon further reflection, I realized that I do in fact incorporate many of the philosophies that underlie martial arts into my employment law practice.  I share those pearls of wisdom below.

Read More >> Employment Law Through the Philosophy of a Martial Arts Practitioner

Yesterday morning, moments ahead of the parade in New York City to celebrate the Women’s National Soccer Team’s World Cup victory, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law two bills related to equal pay.  The enactment of this legislation follows allegations made by members of the Women’s National Soccer Team that the U.S. Soccer Federation has engaged in gender-based wage discrimination by paying the Women’s Team less than the Men’s National Soccer Team.

Read More >> New York Prohibits Salary History Inquiries and Expands Equal Pay Claims

New York State has mandated that sexual harassment training be conducted for all employees, in an interactive manner, on an annual basis. The deadline for completing the training for the current year is October 9.

Read More >> Bond Launches Sexual and Other Harassment Training Program

On June 19, 2019, the New York State Assembly and Senate passed legislation that makes sweeping changes to the New York Human Rights Law.  This legislation will have a significant impact on the litigation of discrimination and harassment claims filed with the Division of Human Rights and in court.  It is expected that Governor Cuomo will sign the legislation soon.  The legislation does not apply retroactively, so only future claims under the Human Rights Law will be affected.

Read More >> New York Legislature Passes Significant Amendments to the New York Human Rights Law

On June 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or the "Board") issued a decision in UPMC and its Subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, reversing long-standing precedent and holding that employers may bar non-employee union representatives/organizers from soliciting employees or promoting union membership in public areas within an employer’s facility.

Read More >> NLRB Holds That Employers May Prohibit Non-Employee Union Organizers From Soliciting Employees in the Public Spaces of Their Facilities

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") to file an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. In other words, the Court held that a plaintiff's failure to file an EEOC charge does not automatically preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over the complaint; instead, an employer must "promptly" raise the defense that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the procedural requirement of filing an EEOC charge. An employer's failure to raise such a defense promptly could result in forfeiture of the defense, and a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over the complaint despite the plaintiff's failure to file an EEOC charge.

Read More >> U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Title VII's Requirement to File an EEOC Charge Before Commencing a Federal Court Lawsuit is Not a Jurisdictional Rule