On June 28, 2024, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law A6138, which clarifies that individuals bringing untimely or inadequately filed lawsuits for sexual offenses revived by the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) under three other laws are not required to file a notice of claim or notice of intention to file a claim beforehand when such suits are brought against the Government. 

While the ASA provided that sexual offenses claims can be revived even if the statute of limitations period passed or a notice of claim went unfiled, the ASA did not directly amend the specific laws such revived suits are brought under to eliminate these procedural hurdles. 

The Bill clarifies that individuals bringing procedurally flawed claims revived by the ASA under the Court of Claims Act, General Municipal Law, and Education Law, specifically, are not required to file a notice of claim or intention to file a notice of claim prior.

This clarification went into effect immediately and applies to lawsuits either pending on or brought after June 28, 2024.

In this interview with Scripps News, Attorney Andrew Lieb discusses the protections for older workers from discrimination under Federal and New York State laws. 

Key points include:

• Individuals aged 40-69 are fully protected and cannot be forced out of their positions due to age.
• Executives over 65 can be required to retire if they meet certain payment standards.
• In New York, everyone 18 and older has these protections and more.
• Companies can mandate physical or mental tests for employees if they are relevant to the job's essential functions and uniformly applied.

On June 6, 2024, the New York State Senate passed Bill S4467, to clarify the state’s anti-discrimination law, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). 

Under the law, a plaintiff only needs to prove that unlawful motivation was a motivating factor and not "the sole motivating factor" or a "but-for cause" of the challenged treatment. 

This clarification allows mixed-motive claims to succeed by showing that discrimination was one motive driving a negative work-related decision. 

This Bill addresses an issue with age discrimination where it was unclear if New York mirrored the standard from federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which requires sole motivating factor. Clearly, the legislature knows that all victims of discrimination in New York need to be treated the same with the same standards. 

This clarification will go into effect immediately once passed by the New York State Assembly and signed by the Governor. 

If you’d like to read more, click here. 

Ready for a big jump in being entitled to overtime pay, which is 1.5 times pay?

The Department of Labor has set new effective earnings thresholds to be entitled to overtime pay per 29 CFR 541.  

Starting on January 1, 2025, we are moving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from an entitlement to overtime pay for those making under $35,586 to those making under $58,656 per year ($1,128 per week). Note that this threshold does not apply to employees who are "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or in the capacity of [an] outside salesman," which terms are defined at 29 CFR 541.

These numbers are particularly important because a worker who is not paid properly can recover 2X back wages (liquidated damages) on unpaid overtime from the prior 2 years. 

Title IX's anti-discrimination obligations on elementary schools, secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients of federal financial assistance have been updated and become effective August 1, 2024, by regulation 89 FR 33474 (34 CFR 106)

Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” absent certain exceptions. 20 U.S.C. 1681.

Consistent with Title VII's SCOTUS decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the regulations define sex broadly to "include[] discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity" in § 106.10.

The regulations have been updated for the following purposes:

• "to provide greater clarity regarding: 
• the definition of “sex-based harassment”; 
• the scope of sex discrimination, including recipients' obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity; and 
• recipients' obligations to provide an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex."
• to ensure that "recipients' procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of sex discrimination are fair to all involved." 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just issued a Non-Compete Clause Rule banning all Non-Competes. 

This Final Rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition for persons to, among other things, enter into non-compete clauses. While this Final Rule does not include a salary threshold, it does allow for non-competes when a business is sold, and also allows existing non-competes to be enforced for senior executives.

So, existing non-competes for workers, who are not senior executives, are no longer enforceable (retroactively undoing contracts). Is that a violation of due process / impermissible taking for employers? Are constitutional challenges next?  

Yet, the most interesting paragraph of the Final Rule reads:

Non-solicitation agreements are generally not non-compete clauses under the final rule because, while they restrict who a worker may contact after they leave their job, they do not by their terms or necessarily in their effect prevent a worker from seeking or accepting other work or starting a business. However, non-solicitation agreements can satisfy the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 where they function to prevent a worker from seeking or accepting other work or starting a business after their employment ends. Whether a non-solicitation agreement—or a no-hire agreement or a no-business agreement, both of which were referenced by commenters, as discussed previously—meets this threshold is a fact-specific inquiry. The Commission further notes that—like all the restrictive employment agreements described in this Part III.D—non-solicitation agreements, no-hire, and no-business agreements are subject to section 5’s prohibition of unfair methods of competition, irrespective of whether they are covered by the final rule. 

Moving forward, non-competes are mostly gone, but non-solicitation agreements, no-hire, and no-business agreements are clearly also on the chopping block where the utilization of each could easily result in protected litigation as to whether they are covered by the Final Rule or generally by section 5's prohibition of unfair methods of competition.

You can read the FTC's press release here.

You can read the Final Non-Compete Clause Rule here.  

The Federal Government recently passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which significantly strengthens protections for pregnant workers and enhances the process for addressing discrimination claims related to pregnancy and related medical conditions in several ways including:

• Clear Prohibitions: The PWFA explicitly prohibits discrimination against pregnant employees, including adverse actions, denial of employment opportunities, and coercion. This clarity empowers pregnant workers to assert their rights without fear of retaliation.
  
• Mandatory Reasonable Accommodations: Covered entities are required to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees unless it causes undue hardship. This ensures that pregnant workers can continue working without facing unnecessary barriers due to their pregnancy or related medical conditions.

• Interactive Process Requirement: The Act mandates an interactive process between employers and employees to determine appropriate accommodations. This process promotes transparency and collaboration, ensuring that accommodations are tailored to meet the specific needs of pregnant workers.
  
• Expansive Definitions: The PWFA provides comprehensive definitions of terms such as "known limitation" and "related medical conditions," broadening the scope of protections for pregnant workers. This clarity reduces ambiguity and strengthens the basis for discrimination claims.
  
• Limits on Supporting Documentation: The Act imposes limits on the type of supporting documentation employers can request from pregnant employees seeking accommodations. This prevents employers from creating unnecessary barriers or burdens for pregnant workers seeking to exercise their rights.