Issues for New York Employers With Remote Workers Outside the State
In assessing the feasibility of permitting employees to work from out-of-state locations, employers customarily assess business and tax issues. However, they should also consider terms and conditions of employment, anti-discrimination and leave laws, and employee separations.
August 11, 2021 at 12:30 PM
6 minute read
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many New York employers shifted to a remote workforce model, which resulted in employees performing their jobs from other states. Employers are now considering whether to afford the option of continued telecommuting as part of their reopening plans. In assessing the feasibility of permitting employees to work from out-of-state locations, employers customarily assess business and tax issues. However, there are myriad employment law issues to consider as well, including with respect to terms and conditions of employment, anti-discrimination and leave laws, and employee separations.
|Terms and Conditions of Employment
Employers may engage employees at-will in New York state, with the limited exception of fast-food workers in New York City. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §20-1201. This means that absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, statutory proscription, or express limitation in the individual contract of employment, an employer has an unimpaired right at any time to terminate the employment relationship without penalty or obligation. See Smalley v. Dreyfus, 10 N.Y.3d 55, 58 (2008). The at-will doctrine is firmly entrenched in almost all other states. Therefore, a New York employer is unlikely to encounter any issues in this regard if an employee works elsewhere. The exception is Montana, where an employee can be discharged only for good cause subject to certain exceptions. See Mont. Code Ann. §39-2-904.
Other matters are not as straightforward. For example, there may be issues with respect to the enforceability of certain provisions in employment agreements. New York employers usually prefer that New York law apply, and include a choice-of-law provision to this effect. It is generally true that such a provision will be honored where the chosen state bears a reasonable relationship to the parties or transaction, such as when the employer is located within the state. See Askari v. McDermott, Will & Emery, 179 A.D.3d 127, 147-48, 153-54 (2d Dep't 2019).
This content has been archived.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 AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTikTok’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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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