NYC Enacts Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law

There is a new civil cause of action in NYC (Administrative Code of the City of New York section 10-1104) for crimes of violence motivated by gender that occurred prior to January 9, 2022. Now, any person claiming to be injured by a party who committed, directed, enabled, participated in, or conspired in the commission of a crime of violence motivated by gender may bring a civil claim against that party. This allows survivors to bring claims even if those claims would have otherwise been barred by the statute of limitations. However, the revitalization of claims is not permanent where claims brought under this law must now be commenced within 18 months of January 28, 2026. So, act immediately if this impacts you. Also, if you brought a claim between March 1, 2023 and March 1, 2025 that would satisfy the requirements of a cause of action under this section, you may now amend or refile (if dismissed) their claim to add a cause of action under this section. Finally, you can recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate. 

DEI, the False Claims Act, and the New Enforcement Reality for Employers

National Law Review article published this week highlights a significant shift in federal enforcement strategy: the U.S. Department of Justice is now actively using the False Claims Act (FCA) to scrutinize workplace DEI initiatives at companies that receive federal funds or hold government contracts.

Read the article here:
https://lnkd.in/ee_mvzCg

According to the article, DOJ is issuing civil investigative demands to major employers and treating DEI-related inquiries as potential fraud investigations, not policy disagreements. The focus is no longer limited to what a DEI policy says on paper, but how it operates in practice.

For employers and the attorneys, this represents a material change in exposure.

The FCA has traditionally been used to police false billing and fraudulent payment claims. DOJ is now advancing a novel theory: that maintaining certain DEI practices while certifying compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws can constitute a false or misleading claim for payment. This approach has been reinforced by executive orders, DOJ guidance, and public statements from senior DOJ leadership.

Whether courts ultimately endorse this theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, investigations are underway, and the cost of responding to a CID alone can be significant. Documentation, internal decision-making, and how DEI concepts are operationalized are now front and center.

This is exactly why Attorney Andrew Lieb recently served as a featured instructor for a New York State Bar Association CLE titled Risk-Informed DEI: Balancing Legal Exposure and Organizational Culture. The program was designed to address the reality employers and counsel are facing now.

The CLE focuses on practical, defensible frameworks for advising employers in this environment. That includes identifying where FCA risk may arise, understanding how regulators evaluate DEI implementation rather than labels, and developing documentation and compliance strategies that align with both legal obligations and organizational goals.

For attorneys advising employers, and for organizations that contract with or receive funding from the federal government, DEI is no longer a purely cultural initiative. It is a legal risk management issue that requires careful, informed handling.

Details on the NYSBA CLE, including registration and CLE credit information, are available here:
https://lnkd.in/eHK9FHfk

As enforcement continues to evolve, employers should not assume that rebranding or surface-level changes are sufficient. The question regulators are asking is how programs actually function, how decisions are made, and what representations are being made to the government. Getting that analysis right now can make the difference later.

Training Repayment Just Became Illegal in New York - Clawbacks Limited in NYS by the Trapped at Work Act

New York State has enacted the Trapped at Work Act by A584C, effective on December 19, 2025. This law expressly precludes employers from recovering on clawbacks for reimbursement of the cost of training and the law extends to protect not just employees, but also independent contractors, interns and many other workers. To be certain, while the law expressly prohibits and renders void any employee promissory note that is required as a condition of employment, it also excludes from its auspices, while expressly permitting, agreements under which a worker has to repay "sums advanced to such worker by the employer" that were not relevant to training. That said, the law provides workers with the ability to recover attorneys' fees if they prevail by rendering a promissory note sought to be enforced by the employer through suit, void. Additionally, the government can seek $1K to $5K per violation fines for violations. 

Facing a training clawback or promissory note? Talk to a New York litigator at Lieb at Law, P.C. before you pay a dime.

FMLA Just Got Messy: DOL Redefines “Normal Workweek” for Shift Workers

Employees with irregular or extended schedules (like correctional officers, nurses, EMTs, and other shift-based workers) have a new way to calculate Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitlements per a DOL Opinion Letter, FMLA2025-02-A (Sept. 30, 2025). In summary, under the Opinion Letter, FMLA hours are based on the actual “normal workweek,” not a standardized 40-hour figure, where mandatory overtime now counts, but voluntary overtime does not. As a result, an employee’s 12 weeks of FMLA leave must reflect that employee’s schedule, not a default 40-hour standard. For example, a correctional officer working 84 hours every two weeks (12-hour shifts, mandatory overtime included) is entitled to 504 hours of FMLA leave, not 480. Employers must also deduct leave on that same basis: hours actually missed from the normally scheduled workweek. To put it simply, if an employee skips required overtime because of FMLA leave, those hours count against their entitlement. But if they skip voluntary overtime, it doesn’t.

Simply, under the Opinion Letter, DOL drew a fuzzy (and litigable) line between “mandatory” and “voluntary.” These types of fuzzy lines result in litigation where an employee will claim that they were ‘pressured’ to pick up shifts or 'strongly suggested’ to take extra hours. Rather than clarifying the rules, the DOL has created a new battleground for disputes over scheduling language and payroll records. Employers are now left to prove, retroactively, that a shift was truly voluntary. Employers with shift differentials, rotating schedules, or recurring overtime must audit how they calculate FMLA entitlement and usage. HR systems that default to a 40-hour week are officially outdated. The DOL has made it clear that if your FMLA math doesn’t match your reality, you’re violating federal law.

The bottom line is that employers, especially in public safety and healthcare, need to redefine their policies before the lawsuits hit. Audit your “mandatory” overtime definitions, verify your FMLA tracking system, and get your documentation airtight. Because after this Opinion Letter, one miscounted hour could mean an FMLA interference claim.

Don’t wait for an FMLA lawsuit to expose your timekeeping gaps.

📞 Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to audit your overtime policies, HR systems, and FMLA compliance before enforcement begins. Call Lieb at Law, P.C. 646-216-8009. 

*attorney advertising

FTC Drops Non-Compete Ban: What Employers and Employees Need to Know About Enforceability

On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission gave up on its federal non-compete ban. As a result, employees who are subject to non-competes can no longer expect a white night, in the form of the FTC, to free them from their handcuffs when seeking to jump jobs. Instead, non-competes will once again need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for enforceability by counsel prior to an employee considering their options and a new employer considering hiring while being subject to a tortious interference with a contract claim. Otherwise, questions like the non-compete's duration, scope of activities, and geographic restrictions will be before the courts. Judges will need to determine if an employee had specialized training or investment from the employer, whether the non-compete concerns a job function dealing with trade secrets and conditional information, and how goodwill was utilized in forming the customer relationship. Then, there is the issue of the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses (predetermined damages for breach) and whether the court will fully strike an overly broad non-compete or instead blue pencil it into a more modified non-compete. Either way, employers who cannot gamble as to what a judge will do and face deep-pocket competitors, who will happily battle out poaching a start employee, should consider garden leave where the employee remains on payroll for the period of the non-compete to avoid ever having to earn a living otherwise while preserving loyalty for as long as the employer seeks. 

Facing a Non-Compete Issue?
Whether you’re an employer seeking to enforce an agreement or an employee evaluating your options, Lieb at Law can help. Our attorneys are experienced in litigating restrictive covenants, negotiating employment agreements, and advising on strategies to protect your rights and business interests.

📞 646-217-8009

✉️ info@liebatlaw.com

Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

*attorney advertising