Prior to this new legislation, direct deposit was the method of payment expressly mentioned under New York State labor laws. Many employers interpreted the regulations to include payroll debit cards, even without any express language on the issue. Employers find this payment method attractive because it costs less than producing a paper check, which is often the only available payment method for the growing number of workers without a traditional bank account. But, it is a system prime for rampant abuse and problems.

The New York Attorney General’s Office previously opined that payroll debit cards were an expensive option for the employees who use them, due to high ATM costs and other fees.  To counter this problem, the new legislation mandates that:

• Payment on a debit card is only allowed with voluntary consent from workers; and
• There must be at least at least one ATM network that charges no fees for access to the money.

Legislators hope that the new changes will clear up any confusion about the use of payroll debit cards and protect the interests of employees.

If you have questions about payroll regulations, contact our office to speak with an attorney today.

Details of the Case

According to the EEOC, the respondents terminated the employment of a worker because

• She identified herself as transgender;
• She was in the process of transitioning from a male to a female; and/or
• Her gender identification did not agree with the employer’s preferences.

The respondents entered into a consent decree with the EEOC and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida approved it. The terms of the settlement included:

• $150,000 compensation to the employee;
• A neutral letter of reference for the employee;
• Employer is required to create discrimination and harassment policies, prohibiting the termination of employment based on an employee’s status as a transgender;
• Employer must provide the EEOC with reports certifying continued compliance with the settlement agreement; and
• Employer is subjected to two years of EEOC monitoring, which includes workplace inspections.

The stance taken in this case suggests that the Commission will continue to fight for the employment rights of transgender workers.

If you have questions about protections for transgender workers, contact our office immediately to speak with an experienced attorney.

According to a Reuters report, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that Wal-Mart’s practices resulted in about 33 million untaken rest breaks.  A Pennsylvania jury sided with the employees and came back with the significant damage amounts. Thus far, attempts at an appeal have been unsuccessful, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the verdict award.

Now, Wal-Mart is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rule on the matter.

• Wal-Mart argues that the verdict amount was determined through “trial by formula,” which is estimation of break times for more than 187,000 workers.  The company asserts that the trial court got it wrong and that this type of estimation took away its ability to provide an adequate defense for each alleged incident.
• The plaintiffs argue against any need for appeal. They assert that the trial court was right, asserting that the damage amount was calculated from Wal-Mart’s corporate records and uniform business practices that were admitted into the trial record.

Wal-Mart is supported in this endeavor by The Retail Litigation Center and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations assert that the magnitude of the Wal-Mart verdict will lead to a surge in class action lawsuits against retailers.

If you have any questions about workday break procedures, contact us today for a free case evaluation.

The new statute confirms that mothers who breastfeed their children in public cannot be discriminated against or prosecuted under indecent exposure law frameworks when the act of nursing is involved. Importantly, this includes immunity from prosecution for actions previously misclassified under exposure or obscenity statutes and ensures mothers cannot be charged or penalized for exercising this protected right.

What the New Law Covers

Known informally as the “Breastfeeding Anti-Discrimination Act,” the legislation specifies several critical changes that directly strengthen public and workplace rights for nursing mothers. Key protections include:

• The legal right to breastfeed in any public or private location where a mother is otherwise allowed to be present
• A ban on criminal prosecution under indecent exposure or public obscenity statutes for breastfeeding
• The removal and prohibition of signage that explicitly bans or discourages breastfeeding
• A ban on treating breastfeeding as unlawful or indecent behavior under exposure laws
• A guarantee that no mother can be charged for workplace or public decency violations when nursing a child
• Legal remedies allowing mothers to file a civil action for discrimination

Public locations defined under the law include – but are not limited to – retail shops, restaurants, public transportation, workplaces, and service food establishments. These protections are especially relevant to industries that previously attempted to restrict nursing space access due to policy ambiguity, informal supervisory bias, or contractual bargaining imbalance.

The “Breastfeeding Anti-Discrimination Act” allows a woman to breastfeed a child in any public place. Public places include, but are not limited to, shops, restaurants and public buses. Any woman who is denied this privilege can file a civil suit claiming damages up to $200 for discrimination.

Other changes in the legislation include the banning of signs prohibiting breastfeeding and ensuring mothers cannot be charged for indecent exposure.

To read the full article, click here. If you have any questions about the act, the laws in your state, or feel you have been discriminated against, contact us today.

Details of the Case

• A worker gained employment by providing a falsified Social Security number and resident alien card.
• Due to changes in work needs, he was laid off and rehired several time. On each occasion, he provided the same falsified forms.
• The worker was injured and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
• The worker was laid off again without reinstatement.
• The worker sued the employer for retaliation and failure to provide a disability accommodation.
• Before trial, the employer learned of the worker’s illegal immigrant status.

The Court’s Ruling

Though the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the company, the state Supreme Court overturned the decision. It concluded that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act did not preempt California’s anti-discrimination act, which states in part that “All protections, rights and remedies available under state law… are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this state.”

For questions about this court determination or any other employment regulation, contact us today.