HR and Employment Issues Facing NY Employers in 2022
Notwithstanding the focus on COVID-19, the New Year is slated to bring a host of other employment law issues affecting New York employers like whistleblower protections, diversity
January 19, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Employment LawDespite COVID-fatigue, it is increasingly apparent that employers are likely to continue to deal with COVID-19 related employment issues throughout 2022. Just as we hoped the disruptions that had defined 2020 and 2021 would dissipate into the New Year, the Omicron variant reignited the proverbial fire. Still, notwithstanding the focus on COVID-19, the New Year is slated to bring a host of other employment law issues affecting New York employers.
|Vaccination Mandates
Although experts are still studying the Omicron variant, data suggests that it is more transmissible than other COVID-19 variants, leading governmental officials and employers to re-evaluate current COVID-19 safety protocols. Companies which had not previously instituted mandatory vaccination policies have been reconsidering as the virus continues to disrupt workplaces and in order to adapt to the changing legal landscape.
New York employers are particularly impacted by several COVID-19 measures enacted over the past few months and which will continue to remain in effect at least through early 2022, including, without limitation:
|- the New York State Health and Essential Rights Act (HERO Act), which requires employers to implement different face covering requirements depending on whether all individuals, including, but not limited to, employees, on the premises are fully vaccinated;
- the NYS Health Commissioner's December 10th Determination on Indoor Masking, which largely tracks the face covering requirements of the HERO Act; and
- the New York City private employer vaccine mandate, which requires workers who perform in-person work or interact with the public in NYC to have submitted proof they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 27, 2021, and a second dose, if needed to be fully vaccinated, within 45 days thereafter.
Employers implementing mandatory vaccination policies, whether voluntarily or to comply with a legal requirement, should ensure that their policies address the need for accommodations based on a qualified individual's disability or sincerely held religious belief, and for other qualifying reasons, such as pregnancy.
This content has been archived.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 AllDecision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
How Businesses Can Protect Themselves Given the Influx Nature of Non-Competes
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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