On September 28, 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill into law significantly amending the New York City Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (“ESSTA”) in order to better align with New York State’s new paid sick leave law (the “NYS Leave Law”). Like its state law counterpart, the amendments to ESSTA (the “ESSTA Amendments”) takes effect on September 30, 2020. As discussed in greater detail below, the ESSTA Amendments: (i) revise the amount of leave that New York City employers are required to provide; (ii) impose new employer reporting requirements; (iii) create new employer reimbursement obligations in connection with requested medical documentation and/or documentation regarding domestic violence; (iv) expand the scope of prohibited retaliation under the law; (v) impose new notice requirements; and (vi) expand enforcement mechanisms.
Continue Reading NYC Employers Take Note: Earned Sick and Safe Time Act Amendments Take Effect September 30, 2020
Eric Raphan
Eric Raphan is a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment practice group and is located in our New York Office.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Adopts “Primary Beneficiary Test” and Provides Guidance on the Unpaid Intern Question
On July 2, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued significant pro-employer decisions in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures (Nos. 13-4478-cv, 13-4481-cv) (“Fox”) and Wang v. Hearst Corp. (No. 13-4480-cv) (“Hearst”) that served as a setback for the plaintiffs in both cases. In both cases, the plaintiffs – unpaid interns who had spent time at Fox Searchlight and Hearst magazines, respectively – alleged that they should have been classified as employees and paid for their time. As a result, they brought claims for, among other things, unpaid wages on a class-wide basis. The district court decisions were split. In Fox, the judge granted summary judgment on the issue that interns were employees and permitted the plaintiffs to proceed on a class and collective basis. To the contrary, in Hearst, the judge denied summary judgment on the same issue and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed as a class. On appeal in both cases, the Second Circuit adopted a balancing standard called the “primary beneficiary test” and held that district courts should use this test when analyzing whether an individual should have been classified as an intern or an employee. The Second Circuit also held that the proposed classes of interns in both cases failed to satisfy the requisite standards in order to proceed on a class-wide basis.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Court of Appeals Adopts “Primary Beneficiary Test” and Provides Guidance on the Unpaid Intern Question