For many years, companies relied on credit scores, credit reports, late payments, charged-off debt, bankruptcies, and account details to filter job candidates or evaluate internal staff. Studies and class-wide discrimination claims have repeatedly demonstrated that this practice disproportionately impacts minority groups, lower-income households, women, caregivers, immigrants, students, and traditionally under-represented applicants. Critics argue that credit reports measure financial history not job performance or workplace risk.

The provision was added as an amendment to the city’s Human Rights Law and goes into effect on September 3, 2015.

What Counts as NYC Credit History Under the Ban

Under the law, the term credit history includes:

• Credit scores and credit reports
• Late or missed payments
• Collection accounts
• Bankruptcy filings
• Civil judgments
• Charged-off or settled debt
• Details about active credit accounts

If your employer asks for this information for a non-exempt role, you have legal grounds to decline.

Employer Exceptions Still Allowed

The law does provide limited exceptions, where credit history may still be screened. The role must fall into one of these categories:

✔ Positions where federal or state law requires credit review
✔ Law enforcement roles or criminal justice positions
✔ Jobs requiring public trust-based background checks
✔ State or federal security clearance roles
✔ Positions with authority over $10,000+ in assets or spending control
✔ Non-clerical roles with access to trade secrets or national intelligence

For all other roles, credit history is legally off-limits for workplace decision-making.

This legislation is largely considered pro-employee and workers should keep it in mind when employers ask for their credit histories. If employees believe that they have been illegally discriminated against based on a credit history issue, they can file a complaint with the New York Commission on Human Rights or file suit against the employer, which can lead to the payment of compensatory damages.

One of our attorneys, Philip Gordon has testified before the House and Senate’s Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development in favor of similar laws here in Massachusetts.

If you have any questions about this legislation or if you have faced credit or background checks in your employment, contact us today.

The current legislation exempts certain classes of workers from receiving overtime pay, even if they work more than 40 hours within a single workweek. The exemption currently applies to workers who are paid a salary of at least $455 per week. In addition, the employee must perform certain types of work, also known as the “duties” test.  While the exact exemption that applies to individual jobs vary, the types of factors to look for include:

• Management of the business;
• Control over individuals;
• Substantial decision making authority;
• Work that requires specialized academic instruction or training;
• Work that is done in the field of computer technology;
• Work that includes sales made away from the employer’s place of business; and/or
• Work in a recognized artistic or creative field.

Though the proposed changes are yet to be reviewed, proponents argue that is the responsibility of Congress to determine if changes are appropriate and make them, and not the executive branch. If the OMB approves the submission, the DOL will release the proposed changes for public review and comment.

If you have any questions about overtime exemptions, contact us today for a free case evaluation.

Details of the Case

On behalf of a group of African American and Hispanic Administrative Managers, the Communications Workers of America filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against DCAS.  The charge alleged that the city agency engaged in systematic wage suppression on the basis of sex, race and national origin.  The union asserted that African American and Latino female managers were subjected to a salary freeze, while caucasian male managers continuously received pay increases.

DCAS rebutted these allegations with an assertion that the union lacked appropriate standing to file a charge on behalf of the employees.  The city agency also denied the allegations of discrimination, asserting that the higher paid managers performed different duties than their lesser paid counterparts.

In its determination, the EEOC sided with the union and created a proposed conciliation agreement.  The terms of the proposal included the following:

• DCAS would give pay raises through an annual step process;
• DCAS would increase the minimum salary paid to all administrative managers;
• A payment of $188,682,531 in back compensation;
• A payment of $56,922,000 in compensatory damages and
• A payment of at least $1 million in legal fees.

If you have questions about the EEOC or discrimination you may be suffering, don’t hesitate to reach out to our office today to speak with one of our attorneys.