New NY Legislation Enables Remote Witnessing of Health Care Proxies

New York has made a significant advancement in healthcare decision-making with the signing of Assembly Bill A8521, allowing for the remote witnessing of health care proxies. This amendment to the state technology law acknowledges the importance of accessibility and safety in legal processes, particularly in times when in-person witnessing is not feasible. Health care proxies, vital for appointing a trusted individual to make health care decisions on one's behalf if incapacitated, can now be witnessed remotely, ensuring individuals' health care wishes are respected even in challenging circumstances.

Reshaping Access: Residential Security and Keyless Devices

On January 26, 2024, Governor Hochul signed Bill No. S8036, which goes into effect immediately. This bill amends NYS's general business law, prohibiting the installation of certain security devices used to control access to common areas of a residential buildings without proper authorization and notice. 

This bill requires:  

1. The written permission of the owners, board of managers, board of directors, or authorized party of residential buildings for the installation of certain security devices. 
2. If written permission is given, then occupants of a residential building must be given 30 days notice prior to the installation of keyless security devices.
3. The written notice must be either delivered to each individual unit or be posted in a conspicuous location in each common area accessible to residents for 30 days.

Further, the bill provides that under no circumstances may the installation of keyless security devices obstruct or adversely impact the manner in which residents of the residential building access it. 

To learn more about Bill No. S8036 click here. How do you see the balance being struck between security regulations and residents' rights? We want to know—comment below!

NEW LAW FOR NYS BUSINESSES: Adapting to New Credit Card Surcharge Regulations

Effective February 11, 2024, a new amendment to General Business Law Section 518 introduces significant changes for businesses regarding credit card surcharges. The key takeaway is that businesses can no longer add credit card processing fees as a separate charge for non-cash payments, even if disclosed. Instead, any surcharge must be included in the total grossed-up price displayed to customers prior to checkout.

Businesses have two main compliant options:

1. Two-Tier Pricing: Display two prices for each item with one including the surcharge for credit card payments and another for cash, checks, or debit payments.
2. Inclusive Pricing: Incorporate the credit card fee into all prices and offer a discount for non-credit card payments.

This change offers businesses an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to fairness and transparency, potentially enhancing customer loyalty. Ensuring clear communication about pricing and payment methods is key to navigating these new requirements successfully.

Violations: If a business violates the amended General Business Law Section 518, there are significant consequences. Non-compliance can result in civil penalties of up to $500 for each violation. In more severe cases, a business could face criminal charges, leading to fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. It's crucial for businesses to adhere to these regulations to avoid legal repercussions and maintain a positive relationship with their customers.

To read Section 518 of New York State's General Business Law click here. To review New York State's Credit Card Compliance Guidance click here. New York State has also released an educational video which you can watch here. 

Suffolk County Human Rights Law Updated - Mortgage Lending Discrimination

An updated version of the Suffolk County Human Rights Law was just released. It has an amended section 528-10(A) as to credit discrimination - mortgage lending, which states as follows:

Unlawful discriminatory practices in relation to credit.

A. 

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any creditor or any officer, agent or employee thereof:

(1) 

In the case of applications for credit with respect to the purchase, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, to discriminate against such applicant because of the group identity of such applicant or applicants, or any member, stockholder, director, officer, or employee of such applicant or applicants, or of the prospective occupants or tenants of such housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or because of the lawful source of income of such individual or individuals, in the granting, withholding, extending, renewing, or in the fixing of the rates, terms or conditions of any such financial assistance or credit; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(2) 

To use any form of application for credit or make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for financial assistance or credit which expresses, directly or indirectly, limitations, specifications, preferences, or discrimination because of the group identity or lawful source if income of the applicant or the applicants; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(3) 

To discriminate in the granting, withholding, extending or renewing, or in the fixing of the rates, terms or conditions of any form of credit, on the basis of an applicant's or applicants' group identity or lawful source of income; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(4) 

To refuse to consider sources of an applicant's income or to subject an applicant's income to discounting, in whole or in part, because of an applicant's group identity.

New Rule Targets Salary History to Close Gender and Racial Pay Gaps

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has taken a significant step towards addressing gender and racial pay disparities within the Federal workforce with its latest regulation. Effective April 1, 2024, this rule prohibits the use of salary history in setting pay for new civilian employees, a practice that has historically contributed to ongoing pay inequities.

The private sector should take notice because the use of pay history is going to be a driving force in future claims under the Equal Pay Act based upon extrapolations from this regulation. 

Salary history has often been a determining factor in pay decisions, but this approach fails to account for the diverse experiences and qualifications individuals bring to their roles. More critically, it has perpetuated biases, inadvertently anchoring new salaries to previous ones that may have been influenced by discrimination. This cycle has been particularly detrimental to women and people of color, who statistically earn less than their white male counterparts. The gap is even more pronounced for women of color, underscoring the urgency of implementing measures that promote fair compensation.

By mandating that Federal agencies set pay based on merit, qualifications, and the requirements of the position rather than past compensation, the OPM aims to dismantle one of the barriers to achieving pay equity. This rule is a bold move towards creating a more equitable and inclusive Federal workforce, where pay disparities no longer shadow one's career.

For an in-depth understanding of the OPM's final rule and its impact on pay equity, visit the Federal Register: Advancing Pay Equity in Governmentwide Pay Systems.

Emergency Ready: New Requirement for Property Management Companies

On January 26, 2024, Governor Hochul signed Bill No. A08494 to amend the multiple residence and dwelling law in New York State. Now, owners and agents of multiple residences and multiple dwellings need to provide emergency personnel a list of names and contact information of residents on lease execution, lease renewal, lease amendment, and now, on annual recertification if an owner is a public corporation regulated by the public housing law. 

The underlying law is important so first responders know that everyone is safe that should be in the housing in events like fires. However, the most vulnerable residents in these situations are often the ones without voices for themselves who are relegated to living in public housing. This new amendment is specific to them and applies the law of providing occupant lists to first responders for residents in housing owned by a public corporation under the public housing law. 

The amendment to the multiple residence and dwelling laws goes into effect on February 15, 2024. To learn more and read bill A08494, click here. How do you envision this impacting community safety? Let us know your thoughts below.

Navigating the New Federal and NYS Reporting Mandates for Corporate Entities with Lieb at Law | Beneficial Ownership Information Filings

There is a NEW reporting requirement for business owners in 2024. 

Beneficial Ownership Information Filings

The landscape of corporate transparency in the United States has undergone significant changes with the introduction of the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in 2021, which will go hand-in-hand with specific reporting requirements set forth by New York State (NYS).  Lieb at Law is committed to guiding your business through both these mandates, ensuring full compliance without the hassle.

Federal Reporting Requirements: The Corporate Transparency Act

The CTA, a bipartisan effort aimed at combating financial crimes, mandates certain businesses to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

Who Must Comply?

• Domestic Reporting Companies: Corporations, LLCs, or similar entities formed by filing with a secretary of state or comparable office within any U.S. state or tribal jurisdiction.
• Foreign Reporting Companies: Entities formed under foreign laws but registered to do business in the U.S. through a similar filing process.

Key Deadlines:

• Pre-2024 Entities: Companies established or registered before January 1, 2024, must submit their initial report by January 1, 2025.
• Entities Formed or Registered in 2024: Must file within 90 days of registration or official notification.
• Post-2024 Entities: Have 30 days from notification to file their initial report.

New York State Reporting Requirements

In addition to federal mandates, NYS has set its own reporting requirements for corporate entities to further enhance transparency and combat illicit financial activities within the state. NYS's reporting requirements go into effect at the end of 2024. To learn more click here to read our blog post. 

Who Is Affected?

• All entities required to comply with the federal CTA. 
• In December of 2024, entities operating within NYS must also adhere to state-specific reporting requirements.

State-Specific Mandates Will Include:

• Additional details on beneficial ownership might be required, aligning with or expanding upon federal mandates.
• Reporting frequencies, deadlines, and procedures specific to NYS, which may differ from federal requirements.

How Lieb at Law Can Assist:

The intricacies of adhering to both federal and state reporting mandates can be daunting. The team at Lieb at Law understands the nuances of both federal and NYS mandates. We will help your business submit reports accurately to both FinCEN and NYS authorities. Reach out today to secure your peace of mind in this new era of corporate transparency. Click here for more information or email info@liebatlaw.com

*Attorney Advertising

Challenging Discrimination: The Fight for Pride Flag Rights in Schools

Connetquot's targeting LGBTQ+ teachers and students in creating a hostile environment must end, but even worse, Connetquot, as a part of the government, must respect its teacher's freedom of symbolic speech by letting them personalize the walls and doors of their classrooms, as SCOTUS recognized emphatically in Tinker v. Des Moines. We cannot let government intrude on our Bill of Rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Full article about the case Lieb at Law is representing featured in Newsday https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/connetquot-schools-pride-flag-lawsuit-h4xq59ol

Navigating Education Discrimination Law - A National CLE Instructed by Attorney Andrew Lieb

Lieb at Law, P.C. has partnered with Law Practice CLE to offer a pivotal Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course, "Education Discrimination: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools," led by Attorney Andrew Lieb.

The Changing Dynamics of Education Law

Education Law is constantly evolving, with recent Supreme Court rulings significantly affecting the landscape, especially regarding the rights of disabled students. This course is designed to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of these changes and the skills needed to navigate them effectively.

Insights from the Course

In this 2-hour online session, Andrew Lieb will dissect the nuances of key cases such as Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller and Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. Participants will learn strategic approaches for handling education discrimination cases, including litigation, due process hearings, and settlement negotiations.

Benefits of the Course

Participants will gain:

• A deeper understanding of recent developments in Discrimination Law.
• Practical strategies for managing complex education discrimination cases.
• Enhanced advocacy skills for representing disabled students in schools.

Who Should Enroll

This CLE course is essential for:

• Lawyers focusing on Education Law and disability rights.
• Legal professionals seeking updated knowledge on education law trends.
• Advocates and educators interested in the legal dimensions of education.

Join Us on 1/31/24 (and available online)

For registration and more information, please visit Law Practice CLE - Education Discrimination: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

To schedule a workplace training contact Lieb at Law, P.C.

Fed DOL Implements Multifactor Analysis for Worker Classification as Employee v. Independent Contractor

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced that on March 11, 2024, a new rule, 89 FR 1638, will go into effect restoring the multifactor analysis used by courts for decades in determining if an individual is an employee or Independent Contractor (IC) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

Misclassifying workers as ICs rather than employees can result in wage claims with liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA, which can be catastrophic for business to continue to exist. Simply, you have to get it right and ICs that are misclassified have excellent cases because liquidated damages are two (2) times the amount not received. 

This new rule is being announced because DOL had concerns about the 2021 IC Rule where it did not fully align with the FLSA's text and purpose. 

The six factors under the New Rule are:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss
2. Financial stake and nature of resources invested in the work
3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship
4. Degree of control the employer has over the person’s work
5. Whether the work is essential to the employer’s business
6. Worker’s skill and initiative

This new rule provides a consistent approach for conducting business with ICs and employes. 

You can read the Department of Labor's release on this new law here. You can read the final rule here.