NYS mandates that every employer to provide each employee with annual sexual harassment prevention training, as required by Labor Law §201-g, and in NYC by Local Law §96. Non-compliance not only risks severe statutory penalties and potential misdemeanor charges by the government, but also exposes your organization to substantial financial judgments in cases of workplace discrimination lawsuits.

Recent settlements in sexual harassment cases illustrate the potential financial impacts:

1. Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West: $168 million settlement. (Source: Zuckerman Law)
2. Sanders v. Madison Square Garden: $11.6 million settlement. (Source: Zuckerman Law)
3. USA Gymnastics v. Larry Nassar: $380 million settlement. (Source: eratics.com)
4. McDonald’s: $2 million settlement. (Source: EEOC)
5. SAVA Senior Care: $150k settlement. (Source: EEOC)
6. Chipotle: $400k settlement. (Source: EEOC)
7. Burger King: $60k settlement. (Source: EEOC)
8. D.C. Dept of Corrections: $8 million settlement. (Source: eratics.com)
9. Columbia University: $100 million settlement. (Source: New York Times)
10.  "F.M." v. Dept of Children and Family Services of LA County: $45.4 million jury award. (Source: Taylor Ring)

To mitigate your exposure, Lieb Compliance offers interdisciplinary sexual harassment prevention training. Our program is a blend of insights from social sciences and legal perspectives, ensuring comprehensive understanding and compliance. We feature engaging star presenters adept at managing sensitive topics, providing an interactive and thought-provoking experience.

Our training is available on-demand, includes a fully-developed complaint procedure, and is backed by an administration system to track compliance. This comprehensive approach ensures that your organization not only meets legal requirements but also fosters a respectful and safe workplace environment.

Don't risk non-compliance. Enroll in Lieb Compliance's NY Sexual Harassment Training today.

For more information, visit https://www.sexualharassmenttrainingny.com

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. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on Newsmax to debate the legality of Texas' new law authorizing the state's police to arrest migrants entering the country illegally. Lieb argues in favor of the law, stating it is within Texas' rights to enforce illegal entry into the state based on how this law differs from the precedent in Arizona v. US (plus, different makeup of the court). 

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on NewsNation to talk about potential legislation prohibiting discrimination based on weight or obesity. He discusses the potential enforcement of laws against 'weight discrimination' and their implications for employers, including the consideration of obesity as a protected category akin to race or religion in anti-discrimination laws. 

In the discussion, Lieb tackles employers' worries, such as the possibility of a gym or health-centric business being unable to hire someone who doesn't align with their brand ethos. He delves into the intricate legal aspects and underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive work environment, steering clear of shaming individuals.

Discrimination Attorney Andrew Lieb explains the challenges of proving age discrimination claims under The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and current efforts in Congress to lower the bar. 

He also discusses whether the parents of a 9-year old Kansas City Chiefs fan have a legal case against Deadspin for portraying him as having blackface in an article where they targeted him for face paint and wearing a headdress.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins The National Report Court on Newsmax TV to debate a recent court ruling in which a federal judge rejected Texas' bid to stop federal agents from cutting razor wire that Texas had installed along the U.S.-Mexico border. Andrew Lieb debates whether Texas has the legal authority to sue the federal government over its border security policies by citing the need for sovereign immunity in order for the US Government to function.

On November 30, 2023, Governor Hochul signed A0372A establishing a new section of the Public Health Law, Section 2803-c-2. 

This new addition to the Public Health Law combined with Executive Law 296 creates express discriminatory events that are actionable. 

The new Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and People Living with HIV Long Term Care Bill of Rights provides that it is unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff member to discriminate against any resident on the basis of such resident's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status. 

Under this new addition facilities are required to post notices about their nondiscrimination policies with information about reporting violations, employ procedures for recordkeeping purposes that include residents' gender identity, correct name as indicated by the resident, preferred pronoun as indicated by the resident, protect personally identifiable information regarding residents' sexual orientation and more. 

Facilities are also now required to ensure that facility staff that are not involved in providing direct care to residents are not present during physical examinations or the provision of personal care without the express permission of the resident or the resident's legally authorized representative and ensure that at least once every two years, each facility staff member who works directly with residents receives training on cultural competency focusing on patients who identify as LGBT and/or HIV.

If a facility  discriminates against an individual protected by Section 2803-c-2, that discriminatory conduct may be actionable under the New York State Human Rights Law. 

Governor Hochul enacted significant legislation this week marking a pivotal moment for freelancer workers across New York State by signing BillA06040, known as the "Freelance Isn't Free Act".

Before the introduction of this law (Labor Law 191-d), problems for freelancers included:

1. Delayed or Non-Payment: Without legal mandates, there was little to no consequence for payment terms leaving freelancers financially vulnerable.
2. Lack of Written Contracts: Many freelance engagements proceeded without formal written contracts, leading to misunderstandings and disputes about work scope, payment terms, deadlines, and other essential aspects of the work arrangement.
3. Limited Recourse for Contract Violations: Prior to this law, there was no straightforward legal recourse if an agreement was violated. Pursuing legal action was often costly and time-consuming, making it an impractical option.
4. Absence of Standardized Contract Terms: With no standardization of contract terms, freelancers often agreed to unfair or exploitative conditions due to lack of industry standards or fear of losing work.
5. Retaliation: Freelancers often hesitated to assert their rights or demand fair treatment due to the fear of being blacklisted or losing future work opportunities
6. Administrative Burdens: Freelancers were often burdened with the responsibility of chasing payments and resolving disputes on their own