NY Employers Grapple With New Sexual Harassment Law, in Effect Today
While New York state's sweeping Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy becomes effective today, employers have until Oct. 9, 2019, to implement the arguably most onerous requirement of the new law.
October 09, 2018 at 01:55 PM
5 minute read
Today marks a big deadline for employers in New York, although not quite as big as some initially feared.
Under New York state's new sweeping Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy, all employers must have adopted and distributed, either via paper or electronic means, a sexual harassment prevention policy by today, the effective date of the law. However, employers have another full year, until Oct. 9, 2019, to implement arguably the most onerous requirement of the new law: sexual harassment training for all employees who work a portion of their time in New York. (An earlier version required the training to occur by year's end.)
“The requirement to actually have a policy and distribute it is new, and a lot of employers really did not have this robust policy that is now required,” said Tammy Riddle, a member in the business law and employment practices groups at Hurwitz & Fine.
In addition to mandating the implementation of a sexual harassment policy and training, the law also requires that employers establish training for new hires “as soon as possible” from their start date and perform the training on an annual basis. (New York City also recently adopted its own regulation, requiring all employers, as of last month, to display in a conspicuous place anti-sexual harassment posters and provide the corresponding information to employees.)
Employers don't have to start from scratch, however. The state provides model policies and training programs, but Riddle said companies should be careful with those given that the model training guides, for example, include requirements that are not contained in the law.
“Every client is in a different industry, and the model training and policy guides may not be a one-size-fits-all solution,” she said. “Employers should take a look at their own policies and modify those to fit their mission and their administration.”
But it's not just the models that require more. The law itself mandates items that aren't typically included in employers' training modules, said Allan Bloom, an employment and labor law partner at Proskauer Rose. These include, he added, information about the federal and state statutes governing sexual harassment, the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment, the available forums for adjudicating sexual harassment complaints, both administratively and judicially, a procedure for the timely and confidential investigation of complaints and a complaint form.
“Most employers are not necessarily looking to educate their employees on what the law is and what their remedies are,” Bloom said.
To Robert Brody, founder and managing member of Brody and Associates, a management-side labor, employment and benefits firm, the new law is just another onerous burden for employers.
These new regulations “are not going to break the bank, but it's just one more reason that it's a pain in the neck to do business in New York state sometimes,” he said.
Brody said that because the state's model policy and training program require more than the law itself, many employers, who would rather just adopt what is free rather than pay to have a tailor-made policy drafted, will be engaging in onerous, unnecessary tasks. In addition, training new employees “as soon as possible” could mean training as often as every month if employers opt to train new hires within 30 days of their start date, as an earlier version required, he added.
“All of a sudden you have to train people, everyone in your organization; that's a pretty big nut to crack,” Brody said. All the requirements are “just difficult, and I think we want to be smart about not creating such a difficult environment that we start saying, “Other states look a lot better than New York.'”
Riddle predicted that the requirement for sexual harassment prevention training to be “interactive” may present the largest challenge for employers. Although the state has made clear that a live trainer is not required, “it did state that if you're just playing a video or handing out a document that does not provide for questions to be answered or some sort of back-and-forth, that's not going to qualify as interactive,” she said.
Bloom said that many employers will likely start rolling out their training sometime this fall or late this year. But Riddle said some employers will apply the policy-distribution deadline to the training and begin doing so today.
“It's a relief that they've got additional time with the training, but employers shouldn't take a sit-back-and-breathe position with it because being proactive may be very helpful in preventing” alleged incidents of workplace sexual harassment, she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250