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.
The NYC Commission on Human Rights will create an interactive training module that will be available to employers free of charge. While these government-created training programs will meet minimum legal requirements, employers should consider providing more detailed, in-person sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training programs.
|Nondisclosure Agreements Regulated
Since July 11, 2018, in New York state, agreements settling claims of sexual harassment cannot include non-disclosure provisions unless the condition of confidentiality is the employee's “preference.”
Employees must be given 21 days to consider any settlement agreement and to decide whether they prefer that it contain a non-disclosure provision, and then given 7 days to revoke the agreement.
|Arbitration Provisions
Since July 11, 2018, in New York state, most new employment contracts cannot require employees to submit to mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of sexual harassment.
|Independent Contractors and Others Protected
The state legislation adds a new section to the New York Human Rights Law that prohibits sexual harassment of non-employees in the workplace. The term “non-employee” includes contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants or other persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace—or an employee of any of these. An employer will be liable when the employer (including its agents and supervisors) knew or should have known that the non-employee was subjected to sexual harassment in the employer's workplace, and the employer failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. This section took effect in April of 2018.
Employers should contact a labor and employment law attorney to ensure compliance with these laws.
Randi May is a partner and Kathleen Lowden is an associate at Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney. They focus on employment matters.
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 All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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