The New York Department of Labor has proposed a new rule intended to increase pay transparency in accordance with Labor Law 194-b, which statute (not the new rule) first becomes effective 9/17/2023. 

Key Proposals:

·       Employers are now required to include a range of compensation on job postings.

·       The rule would not apply to government agencies or “Temporary Help Firms”.

·       The Range of Compensation cannot be open ended, i.e. “$20 per hour and up”, it needs a "good faith" minimum and maximum. Good faith means the amount the employer legitimately believes they are willing to pay a successful applicant at the time the job is posted. 

·       Any current or potential employee affected by a violation can file a complaint under the proposed rule, as can the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. 

Why it Matters:

·       The range of compensation can’t include other forms of compensation; i.e., $18 per hour plus $10 per hour in expected tips cannot be posted as $28 per hour. This is good for employees because it reduces the risk of employee exploitation.

·       The rule is not overly restrictive for employers; it allows them to adjust the range of compensation after collecting additional information through the hiring process.

·       The rule is a good effort at striking a balance between the rights and needs of employees and employers. 

Public comment can be made until November 12, 2023 at email: regulations@labor.ny.gov. 

Effective 9/6/2023, employers who steal wages are guilty of larceny under Penal Law 155. 

Per the bill's, A154A, justification, "[a]ccording to Cornell University's Worker Institute, wage theft in New York accounts for nearly $1 billion in lost wages each year and affects tens of thousands of workers - that's close to $20 million per week."

Yet, employees who experience wage theft should also remember that they can bring civil claims to get that stolen money back through the New York Labor Law and Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, together with liquidated damages and more. 

That means that if your employer takes your money or doesn't pay as frequently as required or doesn't pay overtime, you have rights to sue for your Wages and Hours.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins LiveNOW from FOX on 8/28/23 at 9:30AM to discuss the legal proceedings for Trump and Meadows. Hearings could have major implications on transparency and Trump's legal liability in these election-related cases.

• Two major court cases discussed in the interview: Washington D.C. case regarding election interference charges. A hearing will determine if the trial date will be January 2024 (as prosecutors want) or April 2026 (as Trump wants). - Result was March 4, 2024.
• Georgia case involving "fake electors." A hearing was taking place to determine if the case stays in state court or is moved to federal court, as defendant Mark Meadows wants.
• If the Georgia case moves to federal court, cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom, removing transparency.
• Co-defendants' attempts to argue they were "acting under direction of Trump" directly implicates the former president in the alleged fake elector scheme.
• Trump benefits from wealth, power and influence in the legal system. He receives preferential treatment like quick release from jail compared to others facing similar charges.
• The many ongoing legal battles may energize Trump's base but hurt his chances in a general election by making him seem politically divisive and potentially guilty of crimes.

• Lieb broke down the charges in the Georgia case, including the RICO charge alleging Trump and others formed a criminal enterprise to try to change the lawful election results. Fake elector documents and pressure on officials are also part of the allegations.
• The terms of Trump's release in Georgia notably include prohibitions on intimidating witnesses through social media posts, indicating this may be an area of focus for prosecutors.
• Upcoming dates include an arraignment the week of September 5th and Lieb questioned whether an October trial date will hold given issues around defendant requests for separate trials.

On August 23, 2023, Gov Hochul signed A7355 and added protections for gender identity or expression to the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law 296-c) with respect to unpaid interns. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Scripps News to analyze the biggest legal threat facing former President Trump in the Georgia election interference indictment. Lieb discusses how the RICO charges allow prosecutors to present a cohesive narrative to the jury, showing the defendants had an overall purpose to overturn the election results. He also explains how the inclusion of the word "fraud" in the indictment demonstrates this went beyond just words or politics, involving real forged documents and impersonation, making it difficult for the defense to claim this was just a protest with First Amendment protections.

Service dogs play a pivotal role in the lives of many individuals with disabilities, acting as their lifeline in countless situations. Given their importance, it's crucial for people to know their rights when it comes to these trained companions, especially in places of public accommodation and housing. Understanding the legal landscape surrounding service dogs is vital. Those with disabilities deserve to live without fear of discrimination, and it's imperative for facilities and establishments to understand and respect their rights.

The Legal Background:

By way of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), service dogs are widely acknowledged as reasonable accommodations for those with statutorily recognized disabilities. This recognition extends across the nation, covering a range of establishments, both public and private.

Should anyone find themselves denied these rights, they can legally bring forth a lawsuit for failure-to-accommodate. The range of potential damages is extensive, from recovery for emotional distress and other compensatory damages (like expenses that arose due to the denial) to punitive damages based on the circumstances and the intent behind the denial. Significantly, victims might be awarded attorneys' fees, ensuring they can secure top-notch representation without bearing the financial burden.

For a successful claim, victims must substantiate five key elements:

1. Proof of a statutorily recognized disability.
2. Evidence that the discriminator knew (or reasonably should have known) about the disability.
3. The asserted accommodation (i.e., the service dog) should not pose undue hardship, making it reasonable.
4. The service animal must directly address the needs of the person with the disability, signifying its necessity.
5. There must have been a denial of the accommodation or a refusal to participate in the interactive process.

It's important to note that state laws can sometimes offer even more protection to victims. For instance, the New York State Human Rights Law expands on the federal definition of disabilities. Unlike federal law, it doesn't demand that an impairment substantially impacts a major life activity to be recognized. Given these intricacies, victims are advised to consult with a discrimination attorney before taking any action, apart from promptly documenting the 6 Ws of Discrimination: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and Witnesses. The process is far from simple.

Service Animal vs. Emotional Support Animal: The Distinction Matters:

It's pertinent to highlight the differentiation between a service animal and an emotional support animal. Under the ADA, this distinction becomes relevant in public places. Yet, under the FHA, both these categories are considered viable reasonable accommodations. Some states, like New York, recognize rights to emotional support animals at public places as well. 

The bone of contention here lies in the inherent definitions. As per the Code of Federal Regulations, a service animal is explicitly trained to execute tasks or perform work benefiting an individual with a disability. This can range from physical and sensory disabilities to psychiatric or intellectual ones. In contrast, emotional support animals don't undergo such specialized training. It's essential to recognize that proving a service animal's training and the necessity of its skills requires evidence.

Relying on a conversation with a representative at the ADA is fraught with risk. The interpretation of the law should be grounded in statutes, regulations, and case law, not someone's subjective opinion. Facilities would do well to engage with their legal counsel in such situations and embark on the 'interactive process' as necessitated by the ADA.