Five Things Employers Must Know About NY's New Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws
Employers should not replace their current policies with the model policy or simply adopt it without consulting a labor and employment lawyer.
August 16, 2018 at 01:46 PM
5 minute read
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, both New York State and New York City have passed a package of laws aimed at combatting sexual harassment. Each of these laws applies to employers of all sizes – even those with only one employee. Below are the top five takeaways for New York employers.
Notifying Employees of the Sexual Harassment Policy
By Sept. 6, New York City employers must display a poster in English and Spanish, (designed by the NYC Commission on Human Rights), about anti-sexual harassment rights and responsibilities. Also by Sept. 6, New York City employers must distribute a fact sheet about sexual harassment (created by the commission) to their existing employees and to all new employees upon hire, or they may include the fact sheet in their employee handbooks instead. By Oct. 9, every employer in New York state must have a written sexual harassment prevention policy in place and distribute it to its employees.
Employers can use a model policy that will be created by the New York State Department of Labor and the New York State Division of Human Rights, or they can create their own policy provided that it equals or exceeds the minimum standards set forth in the model policy. The policy shall:
- prohibit sexual harassment and provide examples of prohibited conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment;
- include information concerning the federal and state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment, remedies available and a statement that there may be applicable local laws;
- include a standard complaint form;
- include a procedure for the timely and confidential investigation of complaints and ensure due process for all parties;
- inform employees of their rights of redress and all available forums for adjudicating sexual harassment complaints administratively and judicially;
- clearly state that sexual harassment is considered a form of employee misconduct and that sanctions will be enforced against individuals engaging in sexual harassment and against supervisory and managerial personnel who knowingly allow such behavior to continue; and
- clearly state that retaliation against individuals who complain of sexual harassment or who testify or assist in any proceeding under the law is unlawful.
Please note that many employers, with good reason, include much more in their policies, such as a warning that false and malicious accusations may result in disciplinary action, a statement that investigations will be handled as confidentially as possible, and that participating in an investigation and reporting sexual harassment are also protected from retaliation. Additionally, employers often include policies about fraternization and employee dating with sexual harassment policies. Likewise, employers should have anti-discrimination policies in addition to anti-sexual harassment policies. Finally, New York's policy will not necessarily satisfy standards under federal law. Therefore, employers should not replace their current policies with the model policy or simply adopt it without consulting a labor and employment lawyer.
Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training
Beginning Oct. 9, every New York state employer must provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees on an annual basis. Employers can either use the model sexual harassment prevention training program created by the New York State Department of Labor and the New York State Division of Human Rights or establish their own training program that equals or exceeds the minimum standards provided by the model. It seems likely that this training can be given online provided it is interactive.
Beginning April 1, 2019, all New York City employers with 15 or more employees must provide interactive (but not necessarily live) sexual harassment prevention training to all full- and part-time employees and interns annually, and to new employees within 90 days of hire.
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 AllRise of the Reexam: Surging Ex Parte Reexamination Filings Expected to Increase by 40%
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
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