By: Bond's Immigration Practice Group

On Sept. 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced the launch of “Project Firewall”, a sweeping new H-1B enforcement initiative designed to protect American workers and ensure employers comply with program requirements. For the first time in the Department’s history, the Secretary of Labor will personally certify the initiation of H-1B investigations where there is “reasonable cause” to believe that violations exist. This significant expansion of enforcement authority signals a clear shift toward aggressive oversight of the H-1B program. Employers found in violation of H-1B program requirements may face serious consequences, including back wage liability, civil monetary penalties and debarment from future use of the program.

Project Firewall also emphasizes interagency collaboration.  DOL will coordinate with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to combat purported discrimination against U.S. workers and coordinate enforcement efforts across the federal government.  As a result of this renewed focused on interagency collaboration, employers should expect increased audits, greater information-sharing between agencies and heightened scrutiny in industries that heavily rely upon H-1B workers.

Given this enforcement environment, employers are strongly encouraged to take proactive steps now. Specifically, employers should conduct internal audits of their Labor Condition Applications and public access files, confirm that H-1B workers are being paid the required wages and ensure that job duties and employee work locations align with certified Labor Condition Applications. Employers would also be well served to review hiring and recruitment practices to assess whether qualified U.S. applicants are potentially disadvantaged, and HR and compliance teams should be trained to respond effectively to government inquiries. Finally, engaging outside counsel for a privileged compliance review can help identify and correct potential gaps before they become enforcement issues.

The announcement of Project Firewall underscores the Trump administration’s focus on “America first” priorities and rationalizes this particular enforcement initiative as a way to ensure that highly skilled jobs are offered to American workers first. Employers that rely on H-1B workers should act quickly to review and strengthen internal H-1B compliance protocols, prepare for potential government investigations and/or onsite inspections, closely monitor further guidance from DOL and its partner agencies.

We will continue to monitor developments closely, including the possibility of litigation or further agency guidance that could alter the scope of the requirement. Please contact any member of our Immigration Practice Group with questions regarding how this proclamation may affect your business or employees.

By: Andrew D. Bobrek

As part of this year’s budget, New York state used tax revenues to pay off its UI Trust Fund debt – amounting to almost $7 billion – which then allowed state officials to substantially increase benefits for eligible workers in an expedited manner.  More information from New York state can be found here.

Governor Hochul commented that this change will “put real money back into the pockets of employers and workers alike,” as well as further supports unemployed individuals. It is true that employers should no longer receive annual “Interest Assessment Surcharge” bills, with the state’s UI Trust Fund now solvent, and that employers will face new, reduced contribution rates.  But New York also raised the taxable wage base for UI contribution payments from employers in the coming years and the total cost of UI claims paid by New York will of course increase significantly moving forward.  

No doubt employers across the New York will follow the impact of these changes very closely.  Among other things, nonprofitmaking institutions that have elected New York’s UI “benefit reimbursement” option (i.e., by reimbursing New York dollar-for-dollar on approved and paid UI claim) should carefully evaluate their claims history and plan for any projected increased costs.  In certain circumstances, it may be less costly for nonprofitmaking institutions to pay contributions under New York’s “experience rating” model instead.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Andrew D. Bobrek or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

By: Kseniya Premo

On Sept. 19, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which imposes a new $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on H-1B nonimmigrant petitions. The proclamation applies only to new H-1B petitions filed on or after 12:01 a.m. (ET) on Sept. 21, 2025, and is currently set to remain in place for 12 months unless extended. Employers must submit proof of payment at the time of filing, and both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State will be responsible for verifying compliance. Limited exceptions may be granted if DHS determines that employing a particular H-1B worker is in the national interest.

In a memorandum dated Sept. 20, 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) clarified that the supplemental fee prospectively applies only to petitions filed on or after Sept. 21 and does not affect petitions filed before that date. CBP also confirmed that the requirement does not apply to foreign nationals who already hold valid H-1B visas or to beneficiaries of approved petitions. Current H-1B visa holders may continue to work, travel, and reenter the United States under existing approvals, and CBP will process their entries according to current policy.

On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated that the $100,000 fee is intended to be a one-time payment applicable only to new visas – not to renewals, extensions or reentries by existing H-1B visa holders. Later that evening, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance confirming that the requirement does not apply to petitions filed before Sept. 21 or to individuals who already hold valid H-1B visas. However, USCIS did not expressly address whether the fee will extend to petitions for extensions or changes of status filed within the United States. Until further clarification is issued, there remains a risk that the government could interpret the requirement more broadly than currently suggested.

The practical implications of this new policy are significant. Employers planning to file new H-1B petitions for individuals who are outside of the United States should budget for the substantial additional cost and consider the uncertainty surrounding extensions and changes of status. For current H-1B visa holders, the immediate concern lies in international travel. Given the heightened scrutiny and evolving guidance, we recommend avoiding international travel whenever possible. If travel cannot be avoided, H-1B employees should be prepared to present the CBP memorandum dated Sept. 20, 2025, along with their original passport containing a valid visa, their H-1B approval notice, and recent paystubs or an employment verification letter.

We will continue to monitor developments closely, including the possibility of litigation or further agency guidance that could alter the scope of the requirement. Please contact any member of our Immigration Practice Group with questions regarding how this proclamation may affect your business or employees.

Employer Alert: New Hire Reporting Includes Certain Independent Contractors 

As of Jan. 1, 2022, New York employers are required to report individuals engaged under independent contractor arrangements when the contract exceeds $2,500. This requirement aligns contractor reporting with New York’s existing new hire reporting program and is enforced by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. 

Who is Covered 

Employers subject to this requirement include any entity that meets the federal definition of “employer” for income tax withholding purposes. This includes employers of domestic help, labor organizations (including hiring halls) and state and local governmental entities. 

What Must be Reported and How 

Employers must report independent contractors online through the New York New Hire Online Reporting Center. Importantly, Form IT-2104, which may be used for employees, should not be used for contractors. The State’s portal will prompt all required identifying information, including name, address, Social Security number (SSN), hire date, employer information and dependent health insurance availability. 

Deadlines and Electronic Filing Cadence 

Employers must report newly hired or rehired employees within 20 calendar days of the hiring date. Although the guidance specifically references employees, employers should treat contractor reports as subject to the same 20-day window and submit them promptly upon contract execution or commencement of services. For those filing electronically, two monthly reports may be submitted if needed, spaced 12 to 16 days apart and contractor reports should be included within this reporting cadence. 

Penalties 

Failure to timely report results in a penalty of $20 per individual not reported and failure to file complete information incurs a penalty of $20 per false or incomplete report. These penalties apply per report and can accumulate quickly, making it critical for employers to ensure complete and timely submissions.

Practical Implications for Employers/Action Steps

To ensure compliance with this requirement, employers may want to consider:
Establishing controls to identify when a contractor’s agreement crosses the $2,500 threshold, whether through a single agreement or amendments that increase the value above $2,500.
Updating onboarding and procurement or accounts payable workflows to capture all required identifiers for reportable contractors at the time of engagement, including SSN and current address and to verify completeness and legibility.

Training HR, procurement and/or payroll teams on the online reporting process and timelines

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Adam Mastroleo or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

After more than five years, New York State’s pioneering COVID-19 paid sick leave law officially came to an end on July 31, 2025.

What the COVID-19 Leave Covered

When the law was first introduced in March 2020, it was designed to provide employees leave if they needed to quarantine or isolate due to COVID-19.  For many businesses, this meant adjusting policies overnight to comply with new rules during an unprecedented time.  The COVID-19 leave provided up to three separate periods of leave while an employee was subject to a quarantine or isolation order.  According to the statute, the leave was either paid or unpaid, depending on the employer’s size and income.  Medical documentation was required for multiple leaves, and leave was not available if employees were able to work remotely.  Employers were not allowed to deduct this leave from other available paid leave such as regular sick or vacation time.

What Happens Now

With the law no longer in place, employees will need to rely on other existing leave options if they become ill with COVID-19 (or another serious health condition).  Depending on the situation, those options may include:

• Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”): an employee may be eligible for FLMA leave if the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of their job due to the employee’s serious health condition or to care for the employee’s spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”): an employee may be eligible for protections under the ADA if the employee has a serious COVID-related illness that qualifies the employee for leave or for other reasonable accommodation(s) thereunder.
• New York State Paid Family Leave: an eligible employee may use New York State Paid Family Leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition. 
• New York State Paid Sick Leave: an employee may use New York State Paid Sick Leave for mental or physical illness, injury, health condition or for the diagnosis, care or treatment thereof, or for medical diagnosis or preventive care for the employee or a member of their family for whom they are providing care or assistance with care.  The amount of leave and whether the employer is required to provide paid or unpaid leave may depend upon the employer’s size and income.
• New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act: an employee may use Safe and Sick Leave for the employee’s health, including to receive medical care or to recover from illness or injury, to care for a family member who is sick or has a medical appointment or when the employee’s job or child’s school closes due to a public health emergency.  The amount of leave and whether the employer is required to provide paid or unpaid leave may depend upon the employer’s size and income. 

What Employers Should Do

Even though COVID-19 is no longer a declared emergency, illnesses that keep employees out of work are not going away.  With cold and flu season around the corner, now is a good time for employers to:

• Review and update sick leave policies.
• Ensure compliance with New York State and New York City requirements.
• Communicate clearly with employees about what leave options are available.

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

Does the saying “when the cat is away, the mice will play” apply to labor law? Some states, including New York, seem to think so. With the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) currently lacking a quorum, New York and other pro-labor states are exploring ways to fill the regulatory gap left by a temporarily dormant federal agency. Some states view the lack of quorum as a threat to workers’ rights. Legislatures in those states have passed laws to allow state labor boards to fill in for the NLRB when it lacks a quorum or otherwise declines to exert jurisdiction.

Why the NLRB Is Inactive

The NLRB normally consists of five members and requires at least three to form a quorum—the minimum needed to issue decisions, make rules or take other major actions.  In Jan. 2025, shortly after the new administration came into office, President Trump removed NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the Board with only two members. Wilcox challenged the removal but the Supreme Court reversed a lower federal court ruling temporarily reinstating her to the Board. 

Absent a quorum, NLRB functions are significantly curtailed. Principally, the Board cannot issue decisions, certify elections, promulgate regulations or act in a manner that would otherwise require Board approval. While the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) allows remaining members and NLRB staff to handle limited matters such as processing unfair labor practice charges through regional offices, the Board itself cannot issue decisions or change regulations without at least three members.

The NLRA Generally Preempts State Laws Aimed at Regulating Labor Disputes

Under the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), the NLRA generally preempts state and local laws that attempt to regulate private sector labor relations. That means where there is even the potential for conflict between the NLRA and state or local law, then such state/local law is preempted.

Section 14(c)(2) of the NLRA does permit limited state involvement when the NLRB has expressly declined jurisdiction by rule or decision. However, the NLRA does not address state authority when the NLRB is unable to act due to a lack of quorum. As a result, states are largely left without authority over private sector labor disputes, aside from specific exceptions like agriculture or public employment.

New York's Proposed Law: Senate Bill S8034A

Against this backdrop, the New York State Legislature passed Senate Bill S8034A (the “Bill”), legislation that would allow the state to step in where the NLRB cannot act and represents an attempt to take control over labor relations in the event of a quorum-less Board.

The legislation amends Section 715 of the New York Labor Law to provide coverage for private employees that are normally covered by the NLRA. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would give authority to New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) to oversee labor disputes in the private sector in the event that the NLRB cannot “successfully assert jurisdiction” – in cases such as where the Board lacks a quorum. This would enable the PERB to certify elections and to exercise authority over any previously negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

PERB already has the authority to assert control over certain private sector employers such as small employers that do not meet federal commerce thresholds and thus fall outside of the jurisdiction of the NLRA. But this Bill would significantly expand PERB’s role, allowing it to fill the void left by a nonfunctioning NLRB across a much broader swath of the private sector.

New York’s Moves to Support Labor

This Bill is not a new attempt by New York to regulate in the labor space as the state recently and aggressively sought to expand state power over labor relations. For example, in 2019, New York passed a law known as the Farm Laborers Fair Labor Practices Act (FLFLPA), which covers all farm laborers across the state. The FLFLPA extended coverage of New York’s State Employment Relations Act to agricultural laborers and added certain unique provisions. Specifically, the FLFLPA permits farm workers to organize via a “card check” agreement as an alternative to elections and gives mediators power to impose contracts on unions and employers when they do not reach agreement quickly.

Industry groups and workers have recently challenged those actions as unconstitutional and some of those challenges remain pending.[1]

Conclusion

While Governor Hochul has yet to sign or consider the Bill, New York employers should be aware of increased statewide activity in spaces normally reserved for federal agencies during a period of decreased federal oversight. With respect to the NLRB specifically, New York’s Bill may also be a dead letter upon arrival as President Trump recently nominated two new members to the Board, Scott Mayer (chief labor counsel at Boeing Co.) and James Murphy (former NLRB attorney).  If approved by the Senate, they would increase the Board membership to four (4) and establish the quorum necessary for it to act.

With respect to the NLRB specifically, employers should also be aware that even though the Board currently lacks a quorum, its operations remain as active as possible. To that end, regional offices are still processing and investigating unfair labor practice allegations, issuing complaints to the maximum extent permitted by law and conducting administrative law judge hearings on complaints. Moreover, the Board’s precedents and regulations – including many union friendly rulings issued by the Board under the Biden Administration – remain in effect, meaning employers are still subject to those standards and precedents. Employers who run afoul of established federal labor law could face liability down the road if charges commenced against them now – when the Board lacks a quorum – nevertheless reach the Board in the future when it has reestablished a quorum. Employers should continue to maintain compliance with current Board law.

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

^[1] https://www.nrtw.org/news/ca-ny-farmworkers-ufw-05272025/

On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” into law. The Act contains hundreds of provisions, including new tax deductions for individuals who earn tips and overtime pay.

“No Tax on Tips” 

The Act creates a temporary deduction for tipped workers (employees and self-employed individuals) for “qualified tips.”

Starting this year through 2028, tipped workers may be able to deduct up to $25,000 in reported qualified tips. The deduction phases out for taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers).

“Qualified tips” subject to the deduction are:

• voluntary cash or charged tips received from a customer or through tip sharing – mandatory service charges automatically assessed to customers do not count; and
• those tips earned in “traditionally and customarily tipped industries” – the IRS is slated to publish a list of occupations that “customarily and regularly” receive tips by October 2, 2025.

Employers will need to report, on Form W-2s and Form 1099s, the qualified tip amounts earned during the year and the occupation of the tip recipient.

“No Tax on Overtime” 

The Act also creates a temporary deduction for employees who receive “qualified overtime compensation.”

Starting this year through 2028, employees may be able to deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) in reported qualified overtime compensation. The deduction phases out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers).

“Qualified overtime compensation” subject to the deduction is the pay which exceeds an employee’s regular rate of pay required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). If a nonexempt employee’s hourly rate is $15, for example, and they work one hour of overtime at an overtime hourly rate of $22.50, the employee can seek to deduct the $7.50 received in excess of their regular rate for that hour of overtime. Qualified overtime compensation does not include compensation paid as a result of heightened state law requirements or negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

Employers will need to report, on Form W-2s, qualified overtime compensation received during the year.

In addition to the Form W-2 recordkeeping requirements, employers may wish to review their overtime policies and practices. While clients have shared that certain employees prefer to be classified as exempt (salaried), the Act’s highly publicized overtime deduction provides employees with a new incentive to be classified as nonexempt and work overtime. Accordingly, employers should ensure they have in place a policy and practice of overtime being approved in advance and, most notably, review and confirm which employees are eligible for overtime under federal and state law.

While employees may ask about their classification status due to the deduction, misclassifying and/or changing an employee’s exemption can have significant consequences. Employers should work closely with counsel to review current classifications and before making any changes to minimize such consequences.

If you have questions related to the topics in this information memo or about the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” please reach out to Erin M. Callahan, Hilda (Hildy) Marinello Curtin or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

One of the challenging aspects of managing FMLA leaves, particularly intermittent leaves, is determining whether a certain absence is appropriately treated as a covered FMLA leave. In many such circumstances, if the absence is not within the protection of the FMLA, it may be unauthorized and subject the employee to discipline, or even discharge, under the employer’s attendance policy or otherwise. In these situations, employers properly consider the FMLA Certification from the employee’s health care provider which, in the case of intermittent leaves, should include the following information:

Due to the [employee’s medical] condition, it (was/is/will be) medically necessary for the employee to be absent from work on an intermittent basis (periodically), including for any episodes of incapacity i.e., episodic flare-ups. Provide your best estimate of how often (frequency) and how long (duration) the episodes of incapacity will likely last.

Over the next 6 months, episodes of incapacity are estimated to occur ____ times per (day/week/month) and are likely to last approximately ____ (hours/days) per episode.

So, for example, a health care provider may report that the employee will experience flare-ups from his medical condition 4 times in 6 months with each flare-up lasting 2 days per episode. A recent appeals court ruling cautions employers that such a specific certification is not necessarily controlling in the determination of whether a particular absence (e.g., the fifth or sixth episode within 6 months) is a covered FMLA absence.

Davis v. Illinois Department of Human Resources involved a pregnant employee who, in 2017, provided an FMLA medical certification advising her employer that her pregnancy was “high-risk” and authorized intermittent leave for frequent medical appointments, but stated that her condition would not cause episodic flare-ups requiring leave. The employee was subsequently terminated under the employer’s attendance policy with the final unexcused absence being due to morning sickness related to her pregnancy, which the employer concluded was not authorized FMLA leave based on the medical certification she had presented. The district court granted the employer summary judgment dismissing the FMLA claim.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and sent the case back for a jury trial. We need to look beyond the pregnancy aspects of this case to understand the significance of the holding.^[1] The employer and the district court focused on the medical certification and the fact that the absence at issue was not covered by that certification. However, the appeals court held that “an employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave is not strictly bound by the precise parameters laid out in the medical certification.” Instead, the employer is charged, under the FMLA, with making a reasonable determination based on all of the information available to it. In Davis, for example, the court relied on the fact that the employer first provided the FMLA paperwork to the employee following an absence due to morning sickness as evidence that a jury might reasonably conclude that such absences were entitled to FMLA protection.

In making the determination of whether an absence is covered by the FMLA, employers must recognize that the medical certification only represents the health care provider’s “best estimate” of the frequency and duration of the flare-ups that could cause future intermittent absences. Employers should consider whether the absence in question was “not so far in excess” of the frequency or duration stated in the certification so as to retain FMLA protection.

The Davis court also highlighted the employers’ obligation, under the FMLA regulations, to notify the employee in writing if his/her medical certification is incomplete or insufficient and what additional information is required. In Davis, given the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s morning sickness, a jury could find that this obligation was triggered when the certification failed to mention the need for intermittent leave on this basis.

Managing intermittent FMLA leaves is a complex and often difficult responsibility for employers. This function requires a holistic, reasoned and reasonable assessment process to minimize potential legal risks, including lengthy (8 years(!) and counting in Davis) and costly litigation.

If you have any questions, please contact Thomas G. Eron, any attorney in the firm’s labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you have regular contact.

^[1] Not only is morning sickness a recognized symptom of pregnancy, but the FMLA regulations expressly identify morning sickness as a condition associated with pregnancy that does not require treatment from a health care provider to qualify as an FMLA serious health condition. 29 C.F.R. §825.115(f).

On June 27, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced in a letter to federal contractors that they were invited to share information regarding their compliance efforts in response to Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach states in the letter that EO 14173 is aimed at “eliminating reliance upon unlawful, unfair and unsafe discriminatory practices including those labeled as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and revokes executive orders that implemented or encouraged the adoption of such unlawful practices.” As we previously reported, EO 14173 revoked Executive Order 11246, which was signed into law in 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson and required covered federal contractors to implement affirmative action programs for females and minorities. The OFCCP Director’s letter stated that the EO 11246 regulations’ requirement “that federal contractors engage in workforce balancing and use placement goals to benefit certain individuals may have led contractors to engage in unlawful disparate treatment based on race and sex in hiring and employment decisions.” While OFCCP noted that the regulations expressly prohibited quotas and disparate treatment, the Director asserts that many federal contractors may have, in practice, engaged in disparate treatment by making employment decisions based on race or sex in an effort to meet those goals. Federal contractors were given a 90-day “safe harbor” until April 21, 2025, after which they were expected to have wound down their affirmative action programs for women and minorities under the now revoked EO 11246.  

In her letter, the OFCCP Director invites federal contractors to share information in narrative form about what specific actions they have taken to comply with EO 14173 and discontinue practices previously required under EO 11246. The letter provides examples of changes in practices that OFCCP suggests federal contractors may choose to describe, including trainings, sponsorship programs, leadership development programs or other privileges of employment available only to employees of a certain race or sex; race or sex-based placement goals, including the use of participation in race or sex-related organizations as a “plus factor” or proxy for race or sex in employment decisions, tying executive compensation to meeting race or sex-based hiring, promotion, retention, representation or other demographically-based goals, trainings focused on racial stereotypes, and encouraging recruitment efforts towards or referrals of candidates based on race or sex.

Federal contractors have 90 days (i.e., until Sept. 25, 2025, which coincides with the close of the federal fiscal year) to voluntarily disclose information about their efforts to phase out previous EO 11246 regulatory compliance mandates. The OFCCP letter states “the content, format and decision to provide any information is completely up to the contractor.” OFCCP emphasizes that disclosure is not mandatory and contractors have full discretion over what information to provide, if any.  If federal contractors wish to make such a submission, it may be submitted through the OFCCP Contractor Portal.

Notably, EO 14173 did not rescind federal contractors’ affirmative action obligations for individuals with disabilities and protected veterans under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Vietnam-Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Those affirmative action obligations are also enforced by OFCCP and, at least for now, also mandate compliance with established hiring benchmark and utilization goals. OFCCP’s invitation to share information does not make any reference to these continuing affirmative action obligations enforced by the OFCCP.

In light of the recent significant reduction in OFCCP staff, the closure of a majority of its offices and the proposed elimination of the OFCCP in the next fiscal year, the OFCCP’s enforcement priorities and efforts have been in question. It is unclear how OFCCP intends to use the information it gathers from federal contractors who choose to respond to this invitation for information regarding their efforts to wind down practices previously required under EO 11246. The OFCCP fails to explain what benefit a contractor would gain by volunteering such information. It is also unclear whether OFCCP intends to share this information with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice or the EEOC and/or whether the information submitted by federal contractors would be subject to disclosure in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Federal contractors are encouraged to consult with counsel about their decision whether to make a submission and if so, the content of such submission. 

If you have any questions, please contact Christa Cook, any attorney in the firm’s labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you have regular contact.

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) has recently amended the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) to incorporate New York state’s paid prenatal leave, while including its own requirements that go beyond State law. Effective July 2, 2025, employers operating in New York State and New York City must comply with both the New York State paid prenatal leave requirements and the newly amended ESSTA rules.

As a reminder, New York State became the first state to mandate paid prenatal leave on Jan. 1, 2025, requiring private sector employers to provide pregnant employees with 20 hours of prenatal personal leave during any 52 week calendar period. The leave can be used for pregnancy related health care appointments, such as physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring, testing, discussions with a health care provider to ensure a healthy pregnancy, end of pregnancy care and fertility treatment. To be eligible for paid prenatal leave, employees do not need to work for a specified period of time: all employees, including newly hired employees, are automatically entitled to this benefit. With that said, only pregnant employees may use paid prenatal leave, not their spouse or partner.

The DCWP’s amended rules incorporate most of the state’s paid prenatal leave requirements. Likewise, it mandates employers to provide 20 hours of paid prenatal leave during any 52 week period for pregnant employees, not their spouses or partners, for the same pregnancy related health care appointments described above. However, the amended rules have created new obligations for employers that are either in conflict or absent from the state’s law. The most notable changes include the following:

• Written Record of Use of Leave. When an employee uses paid prenatal leave, an employer must provide the employee with written documentation, such as a pay stub or pay statement, informing them of the amount of paid prenatal leave used during the pay period and the total amount of paid prenatal leave available for use. Employers must maintain records of each employees total balance of paid prenatal leave for each pay period.
• Written Policy. Employers must maintain a written paid prenatal leave policy that meets the requirements of the ESSTA, which must be distributed upon commencement of employment, within 14 days of the effective date of any changes to the policy and upon request by an employee. The minimum requirements that an employer’s policy must meet can be found on pages 30 and 31 of this FAQ.
• Reasonable Documentation. Employers may require reasonable written documentation that the use of paid prenatal leave was for purposes authorized by law if the absence was more than three consecutive days. However, employers are not permitted to request documentation or ask employees about their condition when using such leave under the State’s law.
• Separate Leave. Like the State’s prenatal leave law, employees cannot be forced to use or exhaust other leave in lieu of paid prenatal leave. However, if there is mutual consent between the employer and employee, the amended rules allow an employee’s schedule to be changed instead of using paid prenatal leave.

Bond attorneys are available to guide employers through the implementation of the DCWP’s amended rules. If you have any questions about the information presented in this memo, please contact James E. McGrath, III, Jillian R. Jin, or the attorney at Bond with whom you are regularly in contact.

As we previously reported, on Sept. 5, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law protections for retail employees statewide, mandating that New York retailers adopt safety measures to address and prevent workplace violence (“Retail Worker Safety Act”). Most provisions of the Retail Worker Safety Act (“RWSA”), making up section 27-e of the New York Labor Law, recently took effect on June 2, 2025, with additional provisions for larger retailers scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2027. 

The RWSA applies to “any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company or an association employing at least ten retail employees.” The “retail employees” must work in a “retail store,” which is defined as “a store that sells commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises.” The term “commodity” is not defined.

The Act requires all applicable New York retailers to develop and implement a workplace violence prevention policy, conduct workplace violence prevention training and provide retail employees with access to silent response buttons. On May 29, 2025, the New York State Department of Labor (“DOL”) released a model workplace violence prevention policy, model workplace violence prevention training and guidance on implementing the new law through answers to common frequently asked questions (“FAQs”).

The Model Retail Workplace Violence Prevention Policy

Labor Law §27-e(2) was enacted to require New York retailers to either adopt the state’s model policy or establish their own policy that meets or exceeds the minimum standards in the model policy. The beginning of the model policy makes clear that covered retail employers are encouraged to tailor the model policy to their own “workplace needs and company voice.” Some of the notable sections of the model policy include the following:

• Risk Factors for Workplace Violence. The model policy outlines a non-exhaustive list of workplace conditions that may constitute risk factors for workplace violence.  The list includes some general work situations and others that are specific to certain workplaces. The policy instructs employers to include additional factors that may increase the risk of workplace violence at their own worksite if not already listed.
• Preventing Workplace Violence. This section highlights the training component of the Act as the required means by which New York retailers are to reduce the risk of workplace violence. The model policy also gives covered retail employers the option to establish and implement an incident reporting system for workplace violence incidents in addition to the workplace violence prevention training, as well as to adopt additional methods to prevent workplace violence that are best suited for their specific worksite.
• Retail Workers, Workplace Violence, and the Law. Under this section, the model policy summarizes the applicable federal laws and state statutory provisions concerning violence against retail workers, such as the RWSA, New York State Penal Law and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”). The section also includes a statement that there may be applicable local laws that apply to retail workers in the city, county, town or village in which an employer is located. Further, this section notes the required implementation of a silent response button for all retail employers with 500 or more employees across worksites in New York State by Jan. 1, 2027.
• Retaliation. The model policy contains specific language prohibiting retaliation against retail employees who engage in any of the law’s protected activities, including but not limited to complaining about or reporting incidents of workplace violence, complaining about or reporting factors or situations that may put workers at risk of workplace violence and testifying or assisting in any legal proceedings or investigations concerning workplace violence. The retaliation section of the model policy also lists examples of adverse actions an employer is prohibited from taking against a retail employee which range from termination to more minor acts, such as “changing an individual’s work assignment to a less desirable location.”

The Model Retail Workplace Violence Prevention Training

The written model retail workplace violence prevention training, which is fourteen pages long, generally aims to “increase employee awareness in the workplace and their ability to respond should a workplace violence incident occur.” Notably, the model training does not include store-​​specific information.​​ As a result, employers who utilize the state’s written model training must add site specific or company specific information to their training, such as:

• A worksite​ specific list of emergency exits or a floor map with emergency exits clearly marked;
• The location where staff should meet in the event of an emergency;
• Instruction on the emergency devices (e.g., fire alarms) that are utilized in the workplace, if any, and how they operate;
• Instructions on the security related devices utilized in the workplace, (e.g. personal response systems or panic alarms), and how they operate;
• Additional store specific or company specific emergency procedures; and
• Any history of security problems at their store location and how they should be addressed.

The Model Training Video

The DOL has also released an interactive model retail workers violence prevention training video that is available for retail employers to use at no cost. Use of the interactive training video is not required by the Act. Employers may choose to develop and use their own interactive training for their employees; however, it must meet all the minimum requirements outlined in the Act.

RWSA Guidance

In addition to the model materials, the DOL published answers to common FAQs providing guidance on the implementation of the RWSA in retail workplaces. As for the Act’s training requirement, the DOL explains that a covered retail employer’s workplace violence prevention training must require an employee to provide input during the training and produce a response to the input they provide to ​​​be considered “interactive” under the Act. This can be accomplished in a digital format.

Importantly, the DOL notes that retail employers who have developed their own retail workplace violence prevention policy or training must translate their policy and training template and provide the translations in their employees’ primary language​s​, if the DOL has provided a translation of their model policy and template in that language. 

Employers should note that employees who primarily work on-site at a retail store are also covered by the Act even if they are not employed by the retail store directly and not involved in selling goods at retail (e.g., professional cleaners at retail stores). Moreover, all employees across a retail employer’s locations throughout New York State are covered by the RWSA.

Bond attorneys are available to guide covered employers through the implementation of the RWSA. If you have any questions about the information presented in this memo, please contact James E. McGrath, III, Camisha Parkins, any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice, or the attorney at Bond with whom you are regularly in contact.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) opened its EEO-1 filing platform on May 20, 2025. The deadline for employers to file their EEO-1 reports will be Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

Changes for the 2024 Data Reporting Process

The EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regulations require all private sector employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors who are prime contractors or first tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees to file EEO-1 reports annually through the EEOC’s dedicated website for EEO-1 component 1 data collection. While Executive Order 11246 was rescinded, the EEOC still requires federal contractors with 50 or more employees to file EEO-1 reports on their 2024 data. Additionally, a private employer with fewer than 100 employees must file an EEO-1 Component 1 report if the employer owns, is owned by and/or is affiliated or associated with another employer or there is a centralized or common ownership, control or management so that the group of employers constitutes a single enterprise and/or integrated enterprise and the entire enterprise has 100 or more employees during an employer selected pay period in the fourth quarter (i.e., Oct. 1 through Dec. 31) of the reporting year. The EEO-1 report requires the submission of demographic workforce data to the EEOC, including data by job category and sex and race or ethnicity.

Notably, the EEOC has shortened the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing cycle. Unlike past years, employers will face a hard deadline for all filings of 11:00 p.m. (EDT) on June 24, 2025, with no extensions. Another change in this year’s filing process is that the EEOC is no longer sending notifications via postal mail. All official communications related to EEO-1 reporting will now be sent electronically.

Consistent with President’s Trump’s Executive Order 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, the EEOC will only accept employee data categorized by male or female during this EEO-1 filing. The new instruction booklet for reporting for the 2024 cycle removes the option to report employees as nonbinary. In the past, employers were allowed to report such employees in the “comments” section of the survey. If an employee chooses not to voluntarily self-identify their gender or self-identifies as nonbinary, the federal government requires the company to determine this information by visual survey and/or other available information.

Employers must file their EEO-1 reports through the web-based filing system, which is accessible at www.eeocdata.org/eeo1. The EEOC has published a webpage with resources for employers, including frequently asked questions (FAQs), a user guide, and other resources. The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection Instruction Booklet can be found at the following link: https://www.eeocdata.org/EEO1/home/instructionbooklet

Notably, federal contractors who have federal contracts or subcontracts totaling $150,000 or more must file the annual VETS-4212 report to the Department of Labor by Sept. 30, 2025. Data reported through form VETS-4212 is used by OFCCP in Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) compliance evaluations.

For more information regarding these filing deadlines or compliance with the OFCCP’s affirmative action requirements, please contact Christa Cook or any of the attorneys in Bond’s labor and employment practice.