NY Releases New Draft Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy for Employers
The model sexual harassment prevention policy is part of legislation passed earlier this year to reduce the prevalence of discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
August 24, 2018 at 03:03 PM
5 minute read
New York State has released a draft sexual harassment policy for public and private employers, who must either adopt or build on the “minimum standard” model.
The model sexual harassment prevention policy, as the Cuomo administration called it, is part of legislation passed earlier this year to reduce the prevalence of discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also issued an executive order that will shift all complaints of sexual harassment at state agencies to the Governor's Office of Employee Relations.
“New York continues to send the message loud and clear that we will not stand for discrimination or sexual harassment of any kind,” Cuomo said in a statement. “With these actions, we are building upon the nation's strongest anti-sexual harassment laws and ensuring that this intolerable workplace conduct is addressed swiftly and aggressively across the state.”
The model policy is a floor for employers to build on. There are several provisions that must be included in any policy created by employers, which are required by the new law to adopt a policy by Oct. 9.
Employers have to provide a form for employees to report complaints of harassment and develop a procedure for investigating those complaints that ensures due process for all parties involved.
Employers also have to give employees information about federal and state law on workplace sexual harassment, including remedies available to victims and a statement that local laws may also apply. That information must include examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment.
The policy also has to clearly state to employees that sexual harassment is considered a form of employee misconduct under law and that employees or managers who take part in or knowingly allow such harassment will be disciplined. Employers also have to make clear that there will not be any retaliation against employees who either complain about sexual harassment or help an investigation into such harassment.
Employers will also have to provide sexual harassment prevention training to each of their employees. According to the state, that training has to be interactive and must explain each part of the model policy, or whatever policy the employer chooses to adopt beyond the minimum standards.
Melissa Osipoff, a partner at Fisher & Phillips in New York, said that part of the new law will likely impact employers most.
“Companies have been all over the place in the past. Some companies conduct sexual harassment training for employees. Others do training of just management employees and others do no training at all,” Osipoff said. “Now, all New York employers have to provide sexual harassment training.”
Companies will have to be able to train their employees on sexual harassment by Jan. 1, 2019.
The standards were born from legislation passed earlier this year to address the ongoing #MeToo movement. Lawmakers were criticized for meeting behind closed doors to discuss the policy before unveiling it just hours before it came up for a vote.
Much of that criticism came from the Sexual Harassment Working Group, a group of former legislative staffers who claim they experienced sexual harassment and discrimination while working in the Legislature.
They said on Friday the new actions, which will have a public comment period until Sept. 12, were drafted in much of the same way.
“Our basic issue is the process. That is paramount. To have a good outcome, we want a good process, and a good process is not rushed. It's very inappropriate. The comment period is two and a half weeks,” said Rita Pasarell, a member of the working group.
The group wants the Legislature to hold hearings on sexual harassment to build on the law passed in April. There are already parts of the model policy they want changed. One part ensures confidentiality, for example, but adds the disclaimer that investigations may only be confidential “to the extent possible.”
“There are many, many places in all three of those forms where it's lacking for victims and witnesses and sometimes putting victims in harm's way,” Pasarell said.
The regulations could still be changed following the public comment period, but Osipoff said employers should use the draft documents to start thinking about what they will have to do to comply with the final result.
“We do still have to await the final product before we can close the books on this, but given the implementation date is quickly approaching employers do need to start taking steps now to prepare,” Osipoff said. “They need to review their policies, think of what updates they might need to make with the model policy.”
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 AllCaught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
8 minute readGift and Estate Tax Opportunities and Potential Traps in 2025 for Our New York High Net Worth Clients
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Contract Technology Provider LegalOn Launches AI-powered Playbook Tool
- 2Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
- 3Amid the Tragedy of the L.A. Fires, a Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors
- 4Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review
- 5In Vape Case, A Debate Over Forum Shopping
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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