As addressed in our prior client alert, earlier this year, New York State enacted state-wide mandatory sick and safe leave, which employees in New York State began accruing on September 30, 2020. Days before that effective date, NYC also amended its safe and sick leave law to more closely align with the State legislation. Both jurisdictions have recently released guidance and materials, the details of which are discussed below.
Read MoreYesterday, Mayor De Blasio signed legislation amending the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) to align ESSTA more closely with New York State’s Paid Sick Leave law, which is set to go into effect on September 30, 2020.
Read MoreLast week, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” (the “Order”), which impacts federal agencies, federal contractors, and federal grantees. Specifically, the order prohibits federal contractors from using “any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping . . . or scapegoating”.
Read MoreEmployers will recall that in 2018, New York State and New York City imposed mandatory sexual harassment training obligations on employers, with the State requiring all employees be trained by October 9, 2019. Employers are reminded that both State and City law mandate that this training be conducted yearly, and New York City expanded its training requirement earlier this year to include independent contractors who work for the employer for at least 80 hours and 90 days per year.
Read MoreLast Friday, in response to a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued revised rules for implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The revised rules, which took effect on September 16, 2020, are discussed in further detail below.
Read MoreLast week, the Southern District of New York issued an opinion finding that the Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its authority by issuing certain rules implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Specifically, the Court found to be invalid (1) the portions of the rules requiring employees to have work available to them to be eligible for leave, (2) the expansive definition of “healthcare provider”, (3) the requirement that the employer consent to intermittent leave, and (4) the timing of the documentation requirement.
Read More