On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers only need to prove that employees are exempt under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to defeat a wage and hour claim. This decision replaces the tougher "clear and convincing" standard that had been applied by some courts prior to this decision.

The FLSA requires an employer to pay overtime to employees unless the employer can prove that the employees fall under an exemption, such as being an Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees.

In the case before SCOTUS, the employees claimed that they were misclassified as outside salesmen and sued their employer for overtime pay, liquidated damages (double damages), and attorneys' fees. 

The lower court sided with the employees, in using the tougher "clear and convincing" standard, but the employer appealed while arguing that it only had to prove that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence. SCOTUS agreed with the employer and sent the case back to the lower court to reexamine the facts to determine the applicability of the exemption under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

Regardless, the message is clear: Employers now have a lower hurdle when defending a wage and hour case in proving that an exemption applies to a wage and hour claim under the FLSA. 

On December 22, 2023 Governor Hochul vetoed Bill A01278. This bill would have fundamentally altered New York State's Labor Law by prohibiting non-compete agreements and additional restrictive covenants in labor and employment contracts.

This bill would have addressed the usage of non-compete agreements in employment contracts. It defined critical terms and highlighted that employers, their representatives, or officers of corporations could not solicit, demand, or accept a non-compete agreement from a covered individual. However, it didn't prohibit employers from entering into agreements that protected trade secrets, client information, or client solicitation. 

The justification behind this legislation was grounded in the adverse impact of non-compete agreements on New York's labor market and economy. These agreements purportedly curtailed workers’ mobility, limiting their ability to explore better employment opportunities and potentially stifling competitive wages and benefits.

The federal government has shown interest in a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements. New York could have lead the charge in fostering a more open and competitive labor market by codifying this ban into state law. 

Now, non-competes live on and companies hiring those with non-competes should be worried about tortious interference with a contract claims being levied against them. 

To learn more about Bill A01278, click here. 

On November 22, 2023 Governor Hochul signed Bill A06040 into law thereby creating Labor Law 191-d, the "freelance isn't free act." 

This law will replicate, in large part, the labor rights of freelance workers in NYC throughout state. The Governor's statement on the Bill can be found here. 

This new law defines which Freelance Workers are protected and then requires that Hiring Parties provide timely payments, a right to a written contract with specific terms, a private right action for violations, a right to no retaliation, a public awareness outreach campaign, a reporting requirement and more. In lawsuits buy Freelance Workers, freelancers who are denied rights can claim liquidated damages plus attorneys fees. 

NYS DOL will provide model contracts as well as a non-judicial, administrative process for resolving disputes between Hiring Parties and Freelance Workers.

The goal of this new law is to ensure that all laborers get the right to fair and timely pay. 

New York State has adopted Sick Leave requirements for employers to follow under NY Labor Law § 196-b. With the new rule having become effective on 12/22/21, employers and their HR teams need to get up to speed quickly. 

The new rule requires employers of 3 different categorical sizes to provide a minimum number of paid sick leave hours for employees depending on the size of the employer and its net income. 

The rule does the following:

• Establishes standards of how employees shall accrue sick leave at a rate of no less than 1 hour per every 30 hours worked; 
• Protects employees from having to disclose confidential health information to employers as a condition to taking sick leave; 
• Sets up conditions for employees carrying over unused sick leave over to the following calendar year; 
• Creates protections to prevent employers from retaliating/discriminating against employees for exercising his/her sick leave rights; 
• Requires employers to provide written records of sick leave accrual upon employee request; 
• Requires that employees returning from sick leave be restored to their position prior to the sick leave with the same pay & other terms / conditions of employment; & 
• Allows for collective bargaining agreements to be entered into that provides for paid sick leave. 

Before the rule became effective, employers commented and expressed their concerns, under the regulatory process, and the government's responses have clarified the following facts:

• Newer employees will abuse sick leave because the rules allow employees to immediately use sick leave upon accrual; 
• Carrying over unused sick leave days to following years is problematic (per DOL, employers may either: (1) give employees the option to voluntarily elect to use & receive payment for paid sick leave prior to the end of a calendar year or carry over unused sick leave; or (2) only allow employees to carry over unused sick leave);
• Conflicts can arise between sick leave requirements and other leave policies if not clarified in the employer's policy manual;
• Employee abuse systems need to be in place within an employer's policy manual or issues will arise; and
• Collective bargaining agreements need to be addressed to comply with the new rule.

This new sick leave rule will continue to raise concerns by employers and employees, but proactive employees with great policy manuals / collective bargaining agreements, which have been updated to reflect the new rule will win the day. Otherwise, there are going to be a lot of discrimination and retaliation claims when sick leave issues arise. 

Governor Hochul signed Bill A07373 into law yesterday which permits employees to petition their employer (in writing, within ten (10) days after a layoff, or in advance of a layoff) to implement a "Shared Work" program in lieu of a layoff. While employers are not required to implement a Shared Work program, employers must respond to the employees' petition in writing within seven (7) days and may not discriminate or retaliate against any employees who bring a petition.

The Shared Work program was formed to assist employers in avoiding layoffs and maintain trained workers during an economic downturn by allowing employees to receive partial unemployment benefits while working reduced hours. 

Generally, homeowners are exempt from liability for construction-related injuries that happen in their home. 

However, homeowners become liable if they direct or control the method and manner of work. 

What does that rule mean to you?

The Appellate Courts, in O'Mara v. Ranalli, just taught us that it is a jury question where there is evidence that the homeowner did the following acts:

• Supplied the ladders used by the contractors;
• Being on site and giving direction nearly every day; and 
• Deciding not to permit the installation of stairs from the basement to the first floor in the face of the contractor insisting that it was needed for safer and easier access to the first floor.

Typically, when a construction worker gets injured on the job from an elevated fall, it's a slam dunk case against the GC. 

In fact, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict or absolute liability on general contractors, owners, and their agents regardless if the injured worker is partially at fault for falls at construction sites. 

The only real defense for the GC is that the injured worker was the sole proximate cause of the accident (called the, "recalcitrant worker" defense). But, how do you prove sole cause when everyone claims different facts? 

We just learned the answer in an appellate division case, Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC.

The case was dismissed because "Surveillance footage of plaintiff falling from the ladder demonstrates that" it was solely the injured worker's fault. The ladder didn't move or shake, it was connected to the sidewalk bridge and scaffolding above and tied to the scaffold too. 

Moving forward, GCs should video your construction sites. It can save you a fortune. 

the videos alone are NOT considered interactive. If you are using this video to meet the training requirements, you must also: ask questions of employees as part of the program; accommodate questions asked by employees, with answers provided in a timely manner; or require feedback from employees about the training and the materials presented.