Logo THIS ONE
Sky
IN THIS ISSUE
Deductions for Overpayments and Wage Advances Prohibited Under New York Law
NYSDOL Revises WARN Regulations
Affirmative Defense to Harassment Unavailable Under NYC Law
Individual Liability For Employment Law Violations
USDOL Releases Updated Child Labor Rules Advisor
OUR WEBSITE
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

Join Our Mailing List
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.
The updated NYS WARN regulations can be found at the NYSDOL's website.
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.
SEMINAR UPDATE:
LEGAL LANDMINES: EXEMPT VS. NON-EXEMPT CLASSIFICATION ISSUES

Join Jules Z. Halpern as he discusses one of the fastest growing areas of employment litigation. For more information, visit the HR Learning Center's website.
Date:                    October 13, 2010
Time:                    1:00-2:00 EST
Cost:                    $199 per attendee per computer terminal
Registration:        Attendees must sign up here.


This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and is neither intended to be legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between Halpern Employment Law Advisors and any reader.