New York Requires Employee Proof of Age
Employers in New York must keep records verifying the age of every youthful employee, according to an amendment to the state's labor laws. According to a press release issued by Littler Mendelson, the law, which legislators enacted Dec. 15, 2005, requires employers to maintain proof of age for all employees...
March 31, 2006 at 08:26 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Employers in New York must keep records verifying the age of every youthful employee, according to an amendment to the state's labor laws. According to a press release issued by Littler Mendelson, the law, which legislators enacted Dec. 15, 2005, requires employers to maintain proof of age for all employees claiming to be between 18 and 25 years old.
According to the bill's sponsors, the law's purpose is to, “deter violations of the child labor law,” especially in the garment industry. However, the law does apply to all employers regardless of industry.
To comply, employers must keep one of three forms of identification on file: a driver's license, a certificate of age issued by an employment-certification official or other government-issued documentation. A first offense for failure to maintain proper documents could slap an employer with a $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 60 days. Repeated violations could result in fines of up to $5,000 and/or a year in prison.
The new law leaves two issues unresolved. First, requesting an employee's proof of age could run afoul of New York's prohibition on unlawful pre-employment inquiries. According to a statement by Michael Pappas, a shareholder in Littler Mendelson's New York office, in order to comply with all laws, employers should not request documentation until after an offer of employment has been extended.
In addition, the law does not explicitly state if it has retroactive implications, leaving employers unsure of whether they must collect age information on current employees who fall between the ages of 18 and 25.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
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