|
OUR LOCATIONS
| 525 Northern Blvd. Suite 210 Great Neck, NY 11021 tel: 516.466.3200 fax: 212.658.9313
330 Madison Ave. 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 tel: 212.786.7380 fax: 212.658.9313
1200 Route 22 East Suite 200 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 tel: 908.203.4665 fax: 212.658.9313
|
WE OFFER SERVICES
in these specialty areas:
· Complying with local, state and federal
employment laws and regulations
· Drafting employment- related contracts
and advising on transactions
· Delivering training sessions on a variety
of HR and legal topics
· Advising on labor relations and union
avoidance
· Defending organizations in labor and
employment litigation
· Performing workplace investigations
|
|
|
|
Real Workplace Issues August 2010
|
Greetings!
Welcome to the latest installment of "Real Workplace
Issues," a newsletter dedicated to providing our clients and friends with
practical, everyday employment law and HR information.
In this issue, we highlight New York's law on wage deductions, the recently revised New York State WARN regulations, the latest hardship for New York City employers who find themselves on the other end of a hostile work environment lawsuit, individual liability for family medical leave and wage & hour violations, and an updated interactive online tool for employers who utilize child labor.
Also, be sure to check out the end of this newsletter for important information on an upcoming informative legal seminar.
|
As always, feel free to contact us should you require any
assistance, or have any questions regarding the information contained in this
newsletter.
Sincerely,
Jules Z. Halpern Halpern Employment Law Advisors |
Deductions for Overpayments and Wage Advances Prohibited Under New York Law
One of the most common questions we receive from our clients
is "can we deduct an overpayment or wage advance from our employee's paycheck?"
To understand the answer, it is necessary to understand New York's wage deduction law.
New York Labor Law § 193(1) prohibits deductions from wages
except deductions which (a) are made in accordance with the provisions of any
law, rule or regulation, or (b) are expressly authorized in writing by the
employee and are for the benefit of the employee. Examples of deductions made
"for the benefit of the employee" include payments for
insurance premiums, pension
or health and welfare benefits, contributions to charitable
organizations, payments for United
States bonds, payments for dues or assessments to a labor
organization, and similar payments for
the benefit of the employee (emphasis added).
The next issue that must be considered is, "what are similar payments for the
benefit of the employee?" In Angello v. Labor Ready, 7 NY3d 579 (2006),
the New York State Court of Appeals answered this question and held that
"similar payments" under NYLL § 193(1) are those that are either "monetary" (meaning
that they are investments of money for the later benefit of the employee) or
"supportive" (meaning that the deducted wages are used by someone other than
the employee or employer to support some purpose of the employee). Furthermore, deductions for "similar payments for the benefit of the employee" are limited to
10% of the gross wages due to the employee in the payroll period, in accordance with 12 NYCRR §
195.1.
These deductions are the only deductions permitted
under New York Labor Law. Any other deductions that go directly to the employer
or its subsidiary are prohibited, including (according to recent New York State
Department of Labor opinion letters dated August 3, 2009 and January 21, 2010) those made to recoup overpayments or
advances in wages, even where such
deductions are authorized by the employee.
So how are New
York employers to go about recouping overpayments
and/or wage advances? One way is to seek relief in a separate proceeding
against the employee (i.e., an action in civil court). The other way is to request the employee make a voluntary
payment to compensate the employer for the overpayment or advance. However,
employers beware - such requests must be accompanied by assurances that no
adverse consequences will occur if the payment is not made. Otherwise, the NYSDOL will interpret the request as a forced
"chargeback" in violation of NYLL § 193(2). Putting the request for voluntary
payment (along with the required assurances) in writing is strongly
recommended.
One final note of interest - the NYSDOL has noted that "nothing in the New York State Labor Law prohibits an
employer from taking disciplinary action against an employee for failing to
inform the employer that he or she has been overpaid." Of course, collective
bargaining agreements, employer policies and other factors could impact an
employer's ability to take such action. Therefore, New York employers who wish to discipline an
employee for failing to notify the company of an overpayment should consult
counsel prior to taking disciplinary action.
|
NYSDOL Revises WARN Regulations
On July 9, 2010, the New York State Department of Labor
filed new regulations implementing the New York State Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (NYS WARN) Act. The NYS WARN Act requires "covered employers" provide affected employees with 90 days notice in the event of a covered plant closing, mass layoff or relocation. For more information on the requirements of NYS WARN, see our previous newsletters dated January 2009 and March 2010. The new NYS WARN regulations supersede and replace the former regulations filed
in February, 2010 and readopted in May. The following are some of the major changes reflected in the
updated regulations: - In
reaching the determination of whether an employer meets the threshold 50
employees for purposes of establishing NYS WARN coverage, the point in
time at which the number of employees is to be measured is the date the first
notice is required to be given.
- The
NYSDOL has revised the specific language concerning unemployment
insurance, job training and re-insurance services that must be included in
the notices sent to affected employees and their unions.
- If,
after notice has been given, an employer decides that its operations will
continue and that the announced WARN event will not occur, the employer
must give a "notice of rescission" as soon as possible thereafter. The
notice of rescission must include both a reference to the earlier notice
and a reason why the WARN event is no longer required, and must be sent to
all of the parties who were required to receive the original notice.
- When
an employer asserts a defense in mitigation or exemption of the
requirements of NYS WARN (e.g., unforeseeable business circumstances, faltering
company or natural disaster), the employer must provide documentation in
support of the claimed exemption.
- Employers
who fail to comply with NYS WARN are able to avoid civil penalties by
paying each affected employee the total amount for which the employer is
liable (including back pay and all fringe benefits) within three weeks
from the employee's date of layoff.
However, paying employees their regular wages and benefits over the
period of violation (that exceeds three weeks) will not exempt an
employer from the civil penalty. Furthermore, the required language that
must be included in the notice to employees when such payment is made has
also been slightly revised.
- The
Commissioner of Labor cannot issue an order or determination addressing any
NYS WARN violations without having first held a hearing, unless the
employer has waived its right to a hearing pursuant to a settlement upon
terms acceptable to the Commissioner.
|
Affirmative Defense to Harassment Unavailable Under NYC law
As management-sided labor and employment attorneys, we
constantly stress the importance of maintaining and enforcing comprehensive
anti-harassment/discrimination policies and procedures.
One of the major reasons for doing so is to preserve the
availability of the "Faragher/Ellerth affirmative
defense" in the event the employer gets sued for creating a "hostile work
environment." This affirmative defense
allows employers to avoid vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights law for the hostile work
environment created by a supervisor so long as the employer can show that (1) it took
reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and (2) the plaintiff
unreasonably failed to complain or use the procedure.
However, in Zakrzewska v. New School, 2010 NY Slip Op
3796 (N.Y. 2010), New York
State's highest court
ruled that the Faragher/Ellerth
affirmative defense does not apply to claims brought under the New York City Human
Rights Law. As New York City continues
to become exceedingly employee-friendly, it is now more important
than ever that New York City employers ensure their
anti-harassment/discrimination policies and procedures are updated, and that all
employees are trained accordingly.
And remember - all is not lost. While employers may not be able to escape vicarious
liability using the Faragher/Ellerth
affirmative defense, New York City
law does allow for an employer to use a similar defense to reduce its damages
once it has been found liable.
|
Individual Liability For Employment Law Violations
Almost everyone is aware that a company or corporate entity
can be found liable for violations of employment laws. Oftentimes, however,
owners and management officials are surprised to hear that these laws provide
for individual liability as well.
The federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations, for
example, define an "employer" as including "any person who acts directly or
indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's
employees." Citing these regulations,
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
recently allowed a terminated employee's lawsuit alleging violations of the
FMLA to go forward against (among others) the former employer's plant manager
and human resources manager.
Similarly, a recent case out of the Southern District of New
York affirmed that corporate officers, principal shareholders and management
officials involved in wage and hour decision-making can all be held personally
liable for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Human Resources managers and other management officials must
now realize that employment law violations can result in more than just angry
bosses - they can lead to individual liability as well.
|
USDOL Releases Updated Child Labor Rules Advisor
The U.S. Department of Labor has released an updated version
of the Child Labor Rules Advisor which reflects recent changes to the FLSA's child labor
regulations. These regulations limit the duties and work hours of 14-15 and 16-17 year-olds
who work in "non-agricultural" occupations.
The interactive, online Child Labor Rules Advisor is
designed to answer basic questions about workers and businesses that are
subject to the FLSA's child labor rules, and can be found here. |
|
|
|
|