New York Amends The New York Labor Law To Impose New Wage & Hour Recordkeeping And Notice Obligations On The Majority Of Employers

The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "Act"), which went into effect on April 9, 2011, amends the New York Labor Law to impose new recordkeeping and notice obligations on the majority of employers operating within New York State, as well as expanding the civil and criminal remedies available when employers fail to comply with these provisions.  Specifically, the Act requires that employers provide notice to employees of their rate(s) of pay, designated pay day, the employer's intent to claim allowances as part of minimum wage, all identifying, affiliate and contact information for the employer, which includes the name of the employer and any "doing business as" names used by the employer, and additional information that may be specified by the Commissioner of Labor.   

The notice must be provided in the employee's primary language, as identified by the employee, through translated notices provided by the Department of Labor.  These notices are required at the time of hire, yearly between January 1 and February 1, and when there are changes in the information on the pay notices.  With respect to changes in the terms of an employee’s notice, the employer must provide notice of changes to the affected employees either in a separate written notice seven days in advance or in the detailed wage statement accompanying payment of wages.  The employer is required to retain copies of these notices and a signed, dated acknowledgment of receipt from each employee for six years. The notices must be made available to the Department of Labor upon request. 

Employers should also be aware of changes in the Act because it expands the Department of Labor's authority to enforce the Labor Law.  For example, the Act increases the mandatory liquidated damages for wage violations to 100% of unpaid wages.  In addition, the Act provides for interest from the date of any underpayment and additional civil penalties for failure to comply with final judgments within 90 days.  The Act also provides for individual recovery of civil damages for each workweek in which the employer fails to comply with its new notice requirements.  Finally, the Act expands an employee's ability to bring complaints and private actions for such violations, while also strengthening an employee's protections against any prohibited retaliation by an employer.  Prohibited retaliation includes, among other things, any action which negatively affects workers such as discharge, suspension, transfer to another shift or reduction in wages or hours, which is done because a worker has engaged in a protected activity. A protected activity includes any of the following: an employee’s right to complain to their employer, the Department of Labor, or the Attorney General about possible violations of the Labor Law and regulations issued under it, an employee’s right to file a complaint about these possible violations and give information about their conditions of employment to the Department of Labor or Attorney General, and an employee’s right to testify at hearings or other proceedings. The penalties for retaliation can include fines up to $10,000, as well as another $10,000 in liquidated damages.  The Department of Labor can also request reinstatement of the worker and/or compensation for lost wages.

The New York Department of Labor’s FAQ for the Act can be found here.  New York employers should immediately check their policies to ensure that they are complying with the Act’s new requirements.

Verbal Complaints Can Fall Within the Protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act's Anti-Retaliation Provision

On March 22, 2011, in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the United States Supreme Court held that an employee who lodges verbal complaints regarding alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (“FLSA”), may be entitled to protection of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Kasten decision is a boon to employees, but could create potential problems for employers.

The FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee “because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted any proceedings under or related to [the FSLA][.]” 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3).  The Kasten Court was presented with the question as to whether “filed any complaint” includes oral as well as written complaints. In a 6-2 decision, the Court concluded that it did.

In Kasten, the plaintiff, Kevin Kasten (“Kasten”), sued his former employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (“Saint-Gobain”), alleging that he was terminated in violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision after he orally complained to Saint-Gobain’s management of alleged violations of the FLSA. Kasten complained internally in accordance with Saint-Gobain’s grievance resolution process. Saint-Gobain subsequently terminated Kasten, leading to the underlying lawsuit.

Even though the parties disputed the reason for Kasten’s termination, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Saint-Gobain and dismissed the complaint, finding that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision did not protect oral complaints. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal, agreed and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, held differently, resolving a conflict on this question among the Circuit Courts. The Court analyzed the meaning of “filed” and “any complaint,” and held that the FLSA includes oral complaints. In reaching this holding the Court considered dictionary definitions of the words in question, legislative intent, and the views of agencies such as the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Court appears to have left somewhat open the question of when an oral complaint will be deemed “filed” within the meaning of the FLSA. The Court did, however, note that “a ‘filing’ is a serious occasion, rather than a triviality”, and that the FLSA “contemplates some degree of formality” such that the employer receives fair notice of the complaint. The Court did not, however, expound upon the contours of such formality and notice, and these will likely be issues in future FLSA retaliation lawsuits.

ADR in Employment Cases: Choosing the Right Arbiter

How times have changed. Not so long ago, courts and litigants were unreceptive to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Now parties make much more use of these alternatives to litigation.  Steven Adler, Chair of the Employment Law Department of Cole Schotz recently had an article on the subject published in the MArch 28, 2011 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal.  Click here to read the article.