New York Labor and Employment Law Report : New York Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Bond Schoeneck & King Law Firm : NY Labor Relations, Employee Benefits

Our August 11, 2009, posting explained New York’s new law requiring employers to formally notify new hires of their rate of pay, overtime rate (when applicable), and regular pay date, and to obtain a written acknowledgment from the employee that such information was provided. The law applies to employees hired on or after October 26, 2009. As we noted in the August 11, posting, the amendment to Section 195 of the Labor Law provides that the acknowledgement must conform to any requirements set by the Commissioner of Labor. The Commissioner has now provided those requirements by way of an informational fact sheet for employers and employees, and through a standard acknowledgement form. According to the fact sheet, use of the new form is mandatory. The form requires the individual providing the information to certify that it is accurate, and warns that a knowingly false statement is punishable as a misdemeanor.

Employers should begin using the new form immediately. While the new form will no doubt be adequate for most new hires, it may be difficult to use for new employees who have more than one position and pay rate, who receive incentive compensation in addition to their hourly rate, or whose pay rate can vary (for example based on shift differential). In particular, it may be difficult to use the new form accurately for new employees who work under collective bargaining agreements, which can contain a variety of different pay rates and overtime rates. Employers who have questions about accurately conveying information when using the new form should consult with counsel.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 22, 2009, New York State Commissioner of Health Richard F. Daines, M.D., suspended the mandatory influenza immunization requirement for New York State health care workers due to a shortage of available vaccines. In a letter dated October 23, 2009, the Commissioner wrote that the current emergency regulations requiring vaccination would expire on November 11, 2009, and that no new emergency regulations would be promulgated. Rather, the Department will propose a permanent regulation requiring vaccination of health care personnel in the facilities covered by the emergency regulation and post the draft for a period of public comment. The Department of Health now stresses that the limited vaccine supply should be prioritized for patients and those most at risk (pregnant women, and children and young people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As Henry J. Kaiser once said, “Problems are only opportunities in work clothes.” So it is with annual performance evaluations -- supervisors should see them as an opportunity to improve employee performance, or, if that does not work, as a valuable tool in defending against employment litigation claims. Instead, most supervisors dread them and, as a result, put them off as long as possible. Lawyers for ex-employees love them because, as a general rule, the evaluations: (i) are not brutally honest about poor performance because the supervisor is still “working” with the employee; (ii) conflict with later positions taken by the employer in litigation; and (iii) lack specific examples and often closely resemble the evaluation of employees given dissimilar raises or who are still employed. In my litigation travels, I have been both greatly helped and hurt by evaluations. I have also learned many lessons, some the hard way. Here are a few performance evaluation do’s and don’ts for supervisors:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 29, 2009, Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jordan Barab announced the agency’s proposal to align OSHA’s current Hazard Communication (“HazCom”) Standard with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (“GHS”).  The proposed rule  was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2009 and – if implemented without change – will significantly alter the labels and material safety data sheets that currently appear and accompany hazardous chemicals in the workplace.   Significant aspects of the proposed rule are described below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an employer is not necessarily insulated from liability for the discriminatory acts of its independent contractors. Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., Slip Op. No. 07-4074-cv (September 10, 2009). The case arose when the plaintiff, Michael Halpert, interviewed for a position as a “Shower,” a person who shows apartments to potential buyers. The person who interviewed Halpert for the position was an independent contractor of the defendant Manhattan Apartments. He allegedly told Halpert that “they were looking for someone younger.” Halpert sued contending that he was not hired for the position because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Manhattan Apartments contended that it could not be held liable for any alleged discrimination because the person who made the decision was an independent contractor who was making the hiring decision for himself, rather than for Manhattan Apartments. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 1994), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed, and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In our August 18, 2009 blog, we provided best practice recommendations for conducting workplace investigations generally. This post follows up on the earlier post by focusing in greater detail on best practices for questioning the employee accused of misconduct.

An internal investigation of employee misconduct serves multiple functions. It fosters compliance with corporate policies by ensuring that alleged instances of misconduct are not ignored. It promotes fairness by ensuring that any disciplinary action is based on fact rather than rumor. And it enhances morale by communicating to the workforce that the employer enforces its policies but takes disciplinary action only after giving the accused employee an opportunity to be heard. Proper questioning of the accused employee is essential to achieving all these purposes. Some best practice suggestions for conducting that questioning are provided below.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a final rule published today in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), has rescinded its controversial “no-match” letter regulation promulgated during the Bush administration. The action has been anticipated ever since it was initially announced in July, and completes a process which commenced with the publication of a proposed rule on August 19, 2009. The Bush era regulation never went into effect because its enforcement was preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court.  The significance of the rescission is explained below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Among other things, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) requires heath care plans, third party health plan administrators, pharmacy benefit managers, health care providers, and other so-called “covered entities” and “business associates” to maintain the confidentiality and security of an individual’s “protected health information” or “PHI.” The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “Act”), passed earlier this year as part of the economic stimulus package, introduced substantial changes to the HIPAA privacy and security rules, including the addition of new notification requirements that may apply in the event that the privacy or security of PHI is compromised.

Under the Act, if the confidentiality or security of PHI is compromised by a “covered entity,” notification of the “breach” may have to be provided to (i) affected individuals, (ii) the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and (iii) in certain cases, the media. If a “business associate” compromises the confidentiality or security of PHI, the business associate may be required to notify the covered entity of the breach.

On August 24, 2009, HHS issued interim final rules (“Final Rules”) that clarify the breach notification requirements. Although the Final Rules are effective September 23, 2009, and although HHS expects covered entities to comply as of that date, sanctions will not be imposed for noncompliance that occurs prior to February 23, 2010. Until then, HHS has indicated that it will take appropriate corrective action to help covered entities achieve compliance. Covered entities and business associates should not delay implementing appropriate measures to comply with the requirements of the Final Rules, despite the delayed enforcement date. The most significant aspects of the Final Rules are discussed below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link