What Employers Need to Know About NY's Fast Food Rules
New York City will become the latest city to increase protections for retail and fast food workers with a package of bills Mayor Bill de Blasio signed this week. Daniel Kadish, a Morgan, Lewis & Bockius associate in New York who specializes in employment law, talks about what employers in New York and the rest of the country need to consider about these new laws.
June 01, 2017 at 05:00 PM
12 minute read
New York City will become the latest city to increase protections for retail and fast food workers with a package of bills Mayor Bill de Blasio signed this week.
The bills, which would affect as many as 65,000 workers, includes requirements for employers to provide workers their schedules two weeks in advance, eliminates consecutive shifts, allows employers to offer opportunities to current employees and allows workers to contribute to nonprofit organizations. Another bans on-call scheduling.
San Francisco and Seattle have enacted similar laws. New York is the largest city to make these changes and the mayor called it the most progressive restaurant rights laws in the country. The bills will take effect in six months. Unions have lauded the moves for creating increased protections for an often overworked industry and some business groups have criticized the legislation for restricting flexibility.
We spoke with Daniel Kadish, a Morgan, Lewis & Bockius associate in New York who specializes in employment law, about what employers in New York and the rest of the country need to consider about these new laws. Excerpts from our conversation are below.
What are some important considerations about these new laws?
Kadish said the laws, designed to provide a good workplace with scheduling and compensation for fast food workers, will represent a big shift for employers. The restaurant industry often faces challenges about how many workers will be needed a week or two weeks in advance, he said. Current law was ambiguous about the on-call system, for example. Restaurants and retail often rely on flexible schedules—New York's new law will remove that flexibility, according to Kadish.
How will employers be affected?
The ban on consecutive shifts was an “interesting twist,” Kadish said. “There was one aspect that was not widely reported that prevents employers from working closing shifts and opening the next day. He said this is an example of something that might create addition scheduling headaches.
“With scheduling, employers are looking at labor costs,” he said. “To that extent, this may create administrative burdens to comply with the new laws.”
Another example is the requirement to provide worker schedules two weeks in advance.
“This is an industry where people aren't working 9-5 every day. That type of advance notice is difficult,” he 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 AllEx-Olshan Employment Leader Launches Women-Owned Boutique
Trending Stories
- 111 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
- 2In-House Moves of Month: Discover Fills Awkward CLO Opening, Allegion GC Lasts Just 3 Months
- 3Delaware Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 4'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
- 52 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
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