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This content has been archived.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
© 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 All'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute readHow Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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