On November 15, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in State of Texas v. United States Dep’t of Labor held that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its rulemaking authority when it released its updated federal overtime rule in April 2024 increasing the minimum salary for exemption as an executive, administrative, or professional (“EAP”) employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act from $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) to $844 per week ($43,888 annualized) effective July 1, 2024 and to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annualized) effective January 1, 2025.  The DOL’s new rule also increased the minimum total annual compensation level for exemption as a “highly compensated employee” (i.e., one who customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an EAP employee) and provided for automatic triennial increases in the minimum compensation levels for exemption beginning on July 1, 2027.

The Court’s November 2024 decision declared the DOL’s rule an “unlawful exercise of agency power” and vacated it nationally.  The DOL filed an appeal with the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  However, after President Trump took office, the DOL requested a 30-day extension of time, through March 7, 2025, to file its opening brief on appeal.  We do not anticipate that the DOL will make future filings under the Trump administration challenging the DOL’s authority; perhaps at most there will be a stipulation withdrawing the DOL’s appeal.

Beginning July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter, the DOL will implement further increases in the minimum salary for exemption as an EAP employee and the minimum annual compensation level for exemption as a highly compensated employee, tied to current earnings data. Employers should determine which employees will be impacted by the new thresholds, consider whether they will increase their salaries to the new minimum or reclassify them to overtime-eligible, and if they do reclassify certain employees to overtime-eligible, consider their supervisor’s management of the overtime costs and have a clear understanding of what hours are considered “hours worked”. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

Employers should ensure compliance with all relevant provisions of the New Jersey Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (“NJ Bill of Rights”) which went into effect on July 1, 2024, and outlines the rights of domestic workers employed in private households.  Specifically, the NJ Bill of Rights provides protections for, and establishes guidelines related to, the hiring of hourly or salaried individuals who work in a residence to provide services such as childcare, care for the elderly or disabled, housekeeping, cooking, food service, parking cars, cleaning, laundry, gardening, personal organizing, or other household duties. 

A domestic worker is an hourly or salaried employee, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary, who works in a residence to provide services such as childcare, care for the elderly or disabled, housekeeping, cooking, food service, parking cars, cleaning, laundry, gardening, personal organizing, or other household duties.  Note that the term domestic worker explicitly excludes several categories, including: (1) family members; (2) individuals primarily engaged in house sitting, pet sitting, or dog walking; (3) individuals working at a business primarily run from the residence, such as a home day-care business; (4) individuals who primarily work in household repair or maintenance such as roofers, plumbers, or painters; (5) employees of the state or federal government; and (6) kinship legal guardians.

Under the NJ Bill of Rights, employees are entitled to regular pay of at least the state minimum wage.  If an employee works over 40 hours per week, that employee is entitled to 1.5 times his/her hourly rate for those hours.  Employers must provide up to 40 hours of earned sick leave for employees to care for themselves or loved ones.  Additionally, employers must provide their employees with 10-minute paid breaks every four hours and cannot prevent or discourage employees from taking rest breaks, and the employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break after more than five hours worked consecutively.  Employers should not—and cannot, under the law—keep original copies of any personal documents belonging to their employees.  At all relevant items, employers must have Workers’ Compensation insurance for their employees, and employees are entitled to at least two weeks’ notice before any termination of employment.

Employers should ensure the proper classification of each employee; if an employee is misclassified as an independent contractor but is actually an employee, or if they are compensated in cash off the books, that worker is still entitled to his/her rights under the New Jersey Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.  Under New Jersey law, a worker is presumed an employee unless the employer is able to adequately demonstrate that the worker is free from control or direction over the performance of service; that the service provided by the worker is either outside the usual course of the business for which the service is performed or is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise; and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

Under the NJ Bill of Rights, employers of domestic workers working five or more hours per month must execute written contracts with their employees; this includes domestic workers such as babysitters and/or nannies who commonly have had informal arrangements with private households, but under the law, will have executed written contracts.  Employers are responsible for creating the contracts and cannot retaliate against their employees for requesting a contract.  To that end, under the law, workers are also protected under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination and harassment in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various characteristics, including race, nationality, and gender.

To comply with the NJ Bill of Rights, employers should ensure that they are aware of each of the requirements under the law; ensure accurate classification of employees versus independent contractors; have a standard written contract in place for domestic workers with the terms of employment, hours of work, compensation, and responsibilities; ensure recordkeeping of hours worked and wages paid, including any other benefits provided to the employee; provide worker’s compensation coverage and comply with all applicable occupational health and safety standards.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

The cost of doing business includes the risk of getting sued by a former employee, whether it be for wrongful termination, discrimination, breach of contract, or unpaid wages, and employers must be prepared.

An employer may first become aware of a lawsuit filed by a former employee when the company receives a demand letter, which is typically from the former employee’s attorney and asserts legal claims that it believes the former employee has against the company and outlines certain demands that the former employee has before they actually proceed to filing a lawsuit.  Or, a former employee may decide to go straight to litigation, and the company may therefore be served with a formal legal complaint.  In either case, employers must ensure that they do not delay their response.

First and foremost, legal counsel should be contacted as soon as possible to discuss what immediate action is required and to ensure that no key deadlines are missed.  For instance, demand letters often indicate a timeline in which they are seeking a response, and if no response is provided, then the former employee will file a formal lawsuit.  In this case, the employer who fails to respond timely misses the opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the former employee and therefore faces the risk of incurring expensive litigation costs that may have been avoided.  Formal lawsuits filed, regardless of the court, operate on strict timelines.  For examples, employers who are served with a lawsuit filed by a former employee in a United States federal court must file a response to the complaint within 21 days.  If this deadline is missed, there may be a judgment against the company for failure to respond timely.

Other immediate action that will likely be required of the employer is a review of any relevant insurance policies, agreements that the former employee entered into with the company, and document retention.  For instance, many businesses carry insurance policies for former employee claims, such as a employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) coverage that can provide payment or reimbursement of legal fees, judgments and settlements.  It is imperative that employers contact their insurance broker or carriers immediately to ensure they are aware and knowledgeable of their coverage ranging from which attorneys can represent the business, what claims are covered, what the deductibles are and the coverage levels.

Employers should also check all agreements, specifically, any arbitration agreements, that the former employee signed with the company that requires employment claims to be handled through arbitration instead of through the court system.  Arbitration differs from litigation in significant respects, so it is imperative to determine whether the dispute should be arbitrated. Employers should ensure that all agreements are forwarded to their legal counsel for review and to discuss the legal implications and next steps to be taken.  Keep in mind that sometimes, arbitration agreements, or agreements that have arbitration clause, are signed as part of employee’s onboarding paperwork. 

Employers must also ensure that they and their organization have an obligation to preserve all evidence, whether physical or electronic (including evidence on messaging apps like Zoom, Teams, Slack, etc.) and that they do not delete any evidence that may be relevant to a former employee’s claim.  This obligation exists if the business has received a demand letter or has been served with a formal complaint.  The obligation to preserve evidence includes taking care not to wipe out an ex-employee’s returned company property, such as their laptop and mobile phone, and employers may need to immediately suspend automatic document destruction or deletion procedures to ensure that any potentially responsive documents are not deleted.  Employers must consider all places where relevant documents may reside, including with particular people and on any relevant company systems.  Contacting legal counsel immediately will allow a business to develop a plan for document preservation.

Finally, to prepare for initial conversations with attorneys and insurance carriers, employers should ensure that they have compiled the former employee’s personnel file, including the employee’s offer letter, job description, payroll records, any disciplinary records, performance evaluations and supporting documentation, and any agreements signed by the employee.  Employers should also have their employee handbook that was in effect during the former employee’s employment period readily accessible as well as any other relevant policies or procedures.  Employers should also assess who within the company have information relating to the allegations, whether it be the former employee’s supervisor or any other decision-makers that may have been involved in any adverse employment action alleged by the former employee.

Getting sued by a former employee can be stressful, but legal counsel is always there to assist you through the process.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

Employers should ensure that their employees are well versed in security awareness and that the proper training is provided to them to protect the privacy and security of the company’s sensitive data.  Not only is this a best practice for employers and their employees, but it can also ensure compliance with the numerous data privacy and cybersecurity laws that mandate employee data protection training.

One such mandate is under HIPAA whereby covered entities or business associates are required to provide HIPAA privacy training as well as security awareness training to all workforce members.  Note that this training requirement may apply to employers in their role as a plan sponsor of a self-insured health plan.

Another mandate falls under the New York Department of Financial Services’ cybersecurity requirement for financial services companies whereby covered entities are required to provide cybersecurity personnel with cybersecurity updates and sufficient training to address relevant cybersecurity risks.  Similarly, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information Rule requires covered financial institutions to implement a written information security program to safeguard non-public information, and the program must include employee security awareness training.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) expanded the definition of financial institutions in 2023 to include additional industries such as automotive dealerships and retailers that process financial transactions.

Most recently, effective February 2, 2025, the EU AI Act requires all providers and deployers of AI models or systems to ensure their workforce is “AI literate”.  This means training the employer’s workforce to achieve a sufficient level of AI literacy, taking into consideration various factors such as the intended use of the AI system.  The training should incorporate privacy and security awareness given the potential risks.  Note that the Act applies broadly and has extraterritorial reach and therefore this training obligation may apply to organizations including but not limited to: (a) providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems or placing on the market general-purpose AI models in the Union, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the Union or in a third country (e.g., U.S.); (b) deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or are located within the Union; and (c) providers and deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or are located in a third country (e.g., U.S.), where the output produced by the AI system is used in the Union.  Additionally, under the EU General Data Protection Regulation, a Data Protection Officer is tasked with, among other things, training staff involved in the organization’s data processing activities.

Employers should also be aware of other security awareness training obligations in numerous other laws and regulations, whether express or implied.  This includes certain Department of Homeland Security contractors, licensees under state insurance laws modelled on the NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law, and organizations that process payments via credit cards in accordance with PCI DSS.

Providing training on employee privacy and security is imperative to safeguard an organization’s sensitive data.  All workforce members that have access to the organization’s sensitive data and information systems—not just the IT professionals—are responsible for protecting data.  Employers should ensure that they, along with their stakeholders and HR professionals, are aware of and are providing support for such training to its workforce.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

On February 10, 2025, New York State Senator Sean Ryan introduced Senate Bill S4641, which seeks to broadly prohibit the use of non-compete agreements in employment contracts. The proposed ban aligns with a growing national trend aimed at limiting non-compete agreements, particularly in the healthcare sector, where such restrictions have been criticized for limiting workforce mobility. Sen. Ryan previously sponsored a similar bill in 2023, which the legislature passed. However, Gov. Hochul vetoed that measure, citing concerns over its broad scope and potential economic consequences.

Key Provisions of S4641

The bill introduces several key definitions under a newly proposed Section 191-d of New York’s Labor Law:

• Non-compete agreement: Defined as “any agreement, or clause contained in any agreement, between an employer and a covered individual that prohibits or restricts such covered individual from obtaining employment after the conclusion of employment with the employer.” This definition is limited to true non-compete agreements and does not extend to other restrictive covenants such as confidentiality or non-solicitation agreements.
• Covered individual: Refers to any worker who is economically dependent on an employer, regardless of whether they are employed under a formal contract. However, this category excludes highly compensated individuals.
• Highly compensated individual: Defined as any person earning an average annualized cash compensation of $500,000 or more, calculated using the individual’s three most recent W-2 and K-1 statements. If the person has been employed for less than three years, the calculation is based on the entire duration of their employment.
• Health-related professional: Encompasses a wide range of medical practitioners licensed under New York law, including physicians, physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, nurses, psychologists, and mental health practitioners.

Prohibitions on Non-Compete Agreements

• Under Section 191-d, employers and associated entities—including corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and not-for-profit organizations—would be prohibited from seeking, requiring, demanding, or accepting non-compete agreements from any covered individual or health-related professional.
• Any non-compete agreements entered into after the effective date of the law would be deemed null, void, and unenforceable.

Private Right of Action

The bill grants covered individuals the right to file a civil lawsuit against any employer or entity that attempts to enforce a prohibited non-compete agreement.

The statute of limitations for bringing such a lawsuit would be two years, starting from the later of the following events:

• The date the non-compete agreement was signed.
• The date the individual first becomes aware of the agreement.
• The date of termination of employment or contractual relationship.
• The date the employer attempts to enforce the non-compete agreement.

Courts would have the authority to invalidate non-compete agreements and issue remedies that may include:

• Injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the agreement.
• Liquidated damages of up to $10,000 per affected individual.
• Compensation for lost wages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Exceptions and Carve-Outs

While the bill broadly prohibits non-compete agreements, it does include several exceptions:

• Employers would still be permitted to enter into agreements that:
  • Establish fixed terms of employment or require exclusivity during the term of employment.
  • Protect trade secrets and other confidential information.
  • Restrict employees from soliciting clients of their former employer.
• The bill also exempts non-compete agreements related to the sale of a business. Specifically, individuals who sell the goodwill of a business, transfer a majority ownership interest, or own at least 15% of a business may still be subject to enforceable non-compete clauses.
• The law would not override existing protections under Section 202-k of New York’s Labor Law, which already bans non-compete agreements for certain employees in the broadcast industry.

Severability

The bill includes a severability provision, ensuring that if any part of the law is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions would still be enforceable.

Key Differences From the 2023 Bill

The latest version of the bill makes several changes in response to concerns outlined in Gov. Hochul’s veto memo from December 2023:

• Inclusion of a salary or compensation minimum threshold (the “highly compensated individual”).
• Inclusion of a carve-out for the sale of a business.
• Omission of language identical to California’s Business & Professions Code §16600.

Next Step for Employers

If the bill is passed by the New York State Legislature, it will be sent to Gov. Hochul, who will have three options:

• Sign the bill into law, enacting the ban on most non-compete agreements.
• Veto the bill, as she did in 2023.
• Negotiate amendments through the chapter amendment process to address remaining concerns.

We expect intense lobbying efforts for and against the bill, as happened in 2023. We recommend employers stay on top of such legislative developments.

If you have any questions regarding non-compete agreements and this proposed bill, please feel free to contact Forework HR representative.

On February 14, 2025, newly appointed Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), William Cowen, rescinded several memoranda previously issued by former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Cowen also signaled his intention to provide new guidance in line with the Trump Administration’s policy agenda.

In a memorandum dated February 14, 2025, Cowen formally rescinded multiple General Counsel memoranda issued by his predecessor. He explained that the rescissions were necessary to manage an “ever-increasing workload” that had become “unsustainable” for NLRB staff. The rescinded memoranda include:

• GC 23-05 (“Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the McLaren Macomb Decision”) – This memorandum addressed the NLRB’s ruling in McLaren Macomb concerning the extent to which non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses in employee separation agreements may infringe upon employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). While the rescission does not overturn the McLaren Macomb decision, it eliminates General Counsel Abruzzo’s prior guidance, which stated that “savings clauses or disclaimer language . . . would not necessarily cure overly broad [confidentiality or non-disparagement] provisions.”
• GC 23-08 (“Non-Compete Agreements that Violate the National Labor Relations Act”) – This memorandum asserted that, with limited exceptions, non-compete agreements that restrict employees from accepting certain jobs or starting certain businesses post-employment interfere with their rights under the NLRA.
• GC 25-01 (“Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and ‘Stay-or-Pay’ Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act”) – This memorandum contended that “stay-or-pay” agreements—where employees must reimburse employers for benefits such as sign-on bonuses, training repayment agreements (TRAPS), relocation expenses, or tuition reimbursements if they leave before a specified period—are presumptively unlawful under the NLRA.
• GC 21-06 (“Seeking Full Remedies”) & GC 21-07 (“Full Remedies in Settlement Agreements”) – These memoranda directed NLRB Regions to pursue the “full range of remedies available” in unfair labor practice cases and to structure settlements to provide the most comprehensive relief.
• GC 24-01 (“Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the Board’s Decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC”) – This memorandum provided guidance on the NLRB’s 2023 decision to implement a new, union-friendly recognition standard for employers facing union recognition demands.

Looking ahead, employers should anticipate continued shifts in labor policy under the Trump administration, including changes in enforcement priorities. The NLRB itself did not review exceptions filed in these cases or make definitive rulings on the legality of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses before the conclusion of the Biden administration. The repeal of the aforementioned memos reduces the likelihood that a new general counsel will pursue complaints against employers over the use of restrictive covenants. Furthermore, with the potential for a majority-Republican NLRB in the near future, it is unlikely that the Board would rule in alignment with the former general counsel’s guidance on these issues.

Nevertheless, employers should be aware of the risks associated with implementing non-compete and non-solicitation agreements for non-supervisory employees covered under the NLRA. While restrictive covenants for supervisory employees—who are not subject to the NLRA—may face less scrutiny, employers should proceed with caution when drafting and enforcing these provisions. Employers must consider wage thresholds, ensure that such covenants are narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests, and remain informed about evolving state laws that govern their enforceability.

If you have any questions regarding the actions of the NLRB, please feel free to contact your Forework HR representative.

On January 28, 2025, the Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Acting Chair Andrea Lucas issued a statement announcing that the EEOC is returning to its “mission of protecting women from sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination in the workplace by rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda.”

This statement followed President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14168 (the “EO”), which, among other things, directs federal agencies to enforce “the freedom to express the binary nature of sex and the right to single-sex spaces in the workplace” and remove all existing statements, policies, forms, communications, or messages promoting gender ideology.  The EO  states that the federal government shall recognize only two sexes: male and female. 

Lucas’s latest statements indicate the first steps of the EEOC taking action to enforce the terms of the EO.  Specifically, one day after the EO was issued, Lucas announced several priorities for the EEOC’s compliance, investigations, and litigation, with one being to “defend the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single sex spaces at work.”  Lucas has also removed materials promoting gender ideology from the EEOC’s internal and external websites and documents and began a content review of the EEOC’s “Know Your Rights” poster, which all covered employers are required to post in their workplaces.  Lucas removed the display of EEOC employees’ pronouns in internal and external communications and removed the “X” and “Mx.” gender markers from the EEOC’s charge and related forms and intake process.  Lucas also has also been vocal about her opposition to portions of the EEOC’s “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” that state that harassing conduct under Title VII includes “denial or access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with [an] individual’s gender identity” and “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s known gender identity.”

However, despite Lucas’s clear intentions to enforce the “binary reality of sex,” including by removing guidance and references to “gender identity,” this new priority may be in tension with current federal law.  Specifically, the US Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County held that Title VII prohibits discrimination and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.  Thus, at this time, employment discrimination against transgender and gender nonconforming individuals remains illegal under federal law.  Additionally, more than half of the states in the United States have laws explicitly prohibiting, or have interpreted other laws to prohibit, discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and these laws remain in effect.

President Trump terminated two sitting Democratic commissioners, leaving the EEOC without a voting quorum.  EEOC Lucas cannot unilaterally remove or modify certain gender identity-related documents because doing so requires a majority vote of the full Commission.  Nonetheless, we expect to see an increase in workplace disputes on this issue in the future, including disputes involving “single sex spaces” in the workplace, such as bathrooms and locker rooms.  The Supreme Court in Bostock avoided discussing this issue but it has been addressed to some degree at the state and local level.  For example, according to published guidance, the New York City Human Rights Law requires that employers permit employees “to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification.”

Employers should continue to monitor developments, and in the meantime should review policies and practices with counsel to ensure compliance with applicable law and continue to implement anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and equal opportunity policies as well as conduct workplace trainings consistent with applicable law.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

President Trump has dismissed key figures at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), including Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, as well as the NLRB’s second-ranked attorney, NLRB Deputy General Counsel Jessica Rutter.  On February 3, President Trump appointed William Cowen as NLRB Acting General Counsel.  The Senate must confirm any eventual appointee by President Trump to serve as the NLRB General Counsel.

With the firing of these NLRB members, we expect to see the rescission of memos previously issued that broadened the scope of protected employee activities by targeting issues like non-compete agreements, joint employer standards, and expanding union access. 

It is also important to note that the Board is now officially without a quorum and consists of only two Members: Republican Chair Marvin Kaplan and Democratic Member David Prouty.  NLRB requires a three-member quorum to issue decisions.  Thus, without a quorum, the Board cannot adjudicate cases or set new legal precedent.  However, Regional Offices will continue to operate and process representation petitions, conduct elections, and certify results without a Board quorum.  Thus, all existing and future appeals will be in limbo for the foreseeable future, but employers should remain alert for administrative, rulemaking, or interim guidance from the new General Counsel.

Despite these shakeups, the NLRB remains in full effect and employers are still responsible for compliance with all existing laws and standards.  Accordingly, employers should examine their employee handbooks, work rules, and disciplinary procedures to confirm they meet the most recent NLRB standards.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Poricanin Law.le and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

Below is a list of laws that will take effect in 2025 for employers in New York and New York City.  Employers should review and revise their current policies and practices and update accordingly.

January 1, 2025: Paid Prenatal Leave Law

• Pregnant employees in New York who work for private employers are eligible for 20 hours of paid leave for prenatal care.
• Effective January 1, 2025, New York employers will be required to provide up to 20 hours of paid prenatal leave to pregnant employees during any 52-week period for a long list of pregnancy-related doctor visits.
• Paid prenatal leave is a separate benefit from NYS sick leave or any other leave policies and laws. Accordingly, employees are entitled to 20 hours of paid prenatal leave in addition to any other available leave options. Employers cannot require an employee to choose one leave type over another or exhaust one type of leave before using paid prenatal leave. 
• These benefits are available immediately upon hire, and the leave can be taken in hourly increments and is paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay. Employers are not required to pay out unused prenatal care leave at termination.
• The employee contribution rate and benefit amounts under New York Paid Family Leave will increase:
  • the employee contribution rate will increase from .373 percent to .388 percent
  • the maximum weekly benefit amount will increase from $1,151.16 per week to $1,177.32 per week.

January 1, 2025: Coverage for Mental Health Injuries

• Effective January 1, 2025, New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law will permit all workers to file claims for mental injury based on extraordinary work-related stress.
• This amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law under A5745 (the “Amendment”) expands coverage to all workers in the State of New York whereas previously, only certain first responders were eligible for such benefits.
• The Amendment eliminates the requirement for stress to be a result of a work-related emergency.

March 1, 2025: Retail Worker Health and Safety Act

• Retail employers with 10 or more employees must adopt the Department of Labor’s forthcoming model retail workplace violence prevention policy and training and provide notice to all employees of same.
• The comprehensive policy includes identification of workplace violence risks (such as working alone, late at night, or handling large amounts of money); methods to mitigate these risks; and employee protection from retaliation when reporting safety concerns.
• Employers must provide interactive training for all employees upon hire and annually thereafter, covering de-escalation strategies, active shooter response drills, use of panic buttons and other safety devise, and emergency response protocols specific to each worksite.
• The effective date could potentially be pushed to June 2, 2025.

May 8, 2025: Amendments to 2018 Lactation Accommodation Law (NYC EMPLOYERS ONLY)

• Effective May 8, 2025, employers in New York City will be required to physically and electronically post a copy of their written lactation accommodation policy.  Employers will be required to post the policy in an area accessible to employees and electronically on the employer’s intranet (if it exists).  This NYC law applies only to employers with four or more employees.
• Employers should keep in mind that this posting obligation is in addition to employers’ obligation to distribute a written lactation policy to employees upon hire.  State law requires all New York employers, regardless of size, to make reasonable efforts to provide a room (other than a restroom) or other location where an employee may express milk in privacy. 

June 1, 2025: Fashion Workers Act

• Effective June 1, 2025, the Fashion Workers Act will require model management companies to register their business within one year of the effective date, i.e., June 1, 2026.
• The Fashion Workers Act will impose several duties and responsibilities on both model management companies and clients related to working with models in New York and is aimed at providing greater protections for fashion workers and introduces regulations aimed at implementing labor protections for models and creatives.

June 1, 2025: Warehouse Worker Injury Reduction Program

• Effective June 1, 2025, to comply with the Warehouse Worker Injury Reduction Program, certain New York warehouse employers will need to prepare and implement a program identifying and minimizing the risks of musculoskeletal injuries to their employees, which are the leading cause of injury that results in workers missing work. 
• To comply with the Warehouse Worker Injury Reduction Program, employers that employ more than 100 employees at a single warehouse distribution center, or more than 1,000 employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers within New York, must establish an injury reduction program and work with employees to continuously evaluate and reduce or eliminate musculoskeletal risks and injuries in the workplace.

July 31, 2025: COVID-19 Leave

• New York’s COVID-19 paid quarantine leave expires.
• Currently, New York law requires employers to provide paid sick leave in the event of an order of quarantine or isolation related to COVID-19, in addition to other leave entitlements. Effective July 31, 2025, employers will no longer be required to provide employees with separate Paid Emergency Leave for COVID-19-related quarantines and isolations.
• After July 31, 2025, employees who need time off to manage care or isolate for COVID-19 will need to use existing paid leave laws including New York State’s Paid Sick Leave and New York City’s Earned Sick and Safe Time.

If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

To date, two federal agencies’ attempts to ban or deem non-compete agreements invalid have failed and it is expected that any further attempts by these agencies to invalidate non-compete agreements will fail under the Trump administration, leaving non-compete agreements a legitimate way to protect an employer’s interests from unfair competition under federal law. However, more states have adopted laws restricting the use of non-competes for lower-paid employees and medical professionals, with state courts issuing decisions invalidating non-compete agreements that were found to be overly broad or not supported by adequate consideration. 

By way of background, in April of 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) adopted a rule banning new non-competes and prohibited enforcement of already executed agreements, with limited exceptions, for all employees because such restrictions limit workers’ mobility and lead to lower pay. The rule was set to take effect on September 4, 2024 but failed, as two federal courts (one in Texas and one in Florida) issued injunctions blocking the rule before it could become effective.  Although the FT has filed appeals, the likelihood that the FTC will try to enforce this ban under the Trump administration is minimal.

The other federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), issued a memo via its then-General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, in 2023 to all NLRB Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers stating her position that non-compete provisions in employment contracts and severance agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act, except in limited circumstances, and later took the position that an employee should be entitled to “make whole relief” if the NLRB determines an employer utilized an unlawful non-compete.  In practice, this would mean employees could pursue monetary damages against their former employer for alleged lost wages related to missed job opportunities they had not pursued because of the purported unlawful non-compete. However, Ms. Abruzzo was terminated by President Trump on January 27, 2025 and it is expected that these NLRB directives will likely be rescinded by the new Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel. 

Currently, four states ban the use of non-competes entirely and 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legislation restricting their use.  In 2025, Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania will prohibit or limit the use of non-competes for various types of health care professionals, joining 17 other states, including Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas, which have some limits on non-competes for health care professionals. For example, Pennsylvania’s new law limits non-competes for health care practitioners to one year and voids non-competes for health care practitioners who are dismissed by their employers.  States have continued to adopt salary-level thresholds for the use of non-competes, and increased limits on non-competes at the state level are expected to continue in 2025.  

In New York State, Governor Hochul vetoed a proposed law banning noncompete agreements in 2024 which would have covered all individuals, i.e., individuals performing work or services for an organization who are in a position of economic dependence on that organization and provided them with the right to bring a civil action against their employer. At the time, Governor Hochul indicated that she would support a bill that allows noncompete agreements for high earners.   Most recently, a bill introduced in the New York State Senate on February 10, 2025, would prohibit nearly all non-compete agreements arising in employment, and consistent with a national trend, non-competes for healthcare professionals would be banned. The proposed bill defines “highly compensated individual” as “any individual who is compensated at an average annualized rate of cash compensation … equivalent to or greater than [$500,000] per year” and “health related professional” includes physicians, physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, perfusionists, veterinarians, physical therapists, pharmacists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, psychologists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, audiologists, and mental health practitioners, all as licensed under New York law. If the legislature passes the bill and it is sent to the governor for signature, Governor Hochul can sign it, veto it, or secure changes through a chapter amendment process. Employers should stay apprised of pending legislation, and in the meantime, should review the terms of their non-compete provisions to ensure that their non-compete language is reasonable in geographic scope and duration and supported by sufficient (and not nominal) consideration and ensure that the terms are compliant with state law where the employee is working, including any applicable salary threshold requirements. Employers should also consider strengthening their non-solicitation provisions and confidentiality provisions. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.