by Stephen D. Hans | Mar 21, 2023 | Employment Defense Attorney
Automated Employment Decision Tools audits required for AI use AEDT Audits are necessary for NYC employers who are using Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) as part of their hiring, job promotion and production processes. What this means is that employers using AI during the hiring process, for employee assessments and to improve worker productivity have new rules. While AI can help streamline processes and make them more efficient, the use of AI also requires greater scrutiny. This is where the AEDT audits come into play. Local Law 144 addresses the use of AEDT by NYC employers. Bias Audits for AEDT The New York Law Journal points out that NYC Local Law 144 is the most robust law for regulating AEDTs. What is the purpose of the audit? The purpose of the audit is to ensure the AI does not use biased information in employment decisions. The bias audit must evaluate: The selection rate for race/ethnicity and sex categories that the EEOC requires in a report An impact ratio and intersectional analysis (would combine ethnicity and sex) in addition to an independent evaluation of each protected category What requirements do employers have to meet before using AEDT? Local Law 144 requires that that employers: Within one year of using an AEDT, have an independent auditor conduct an audit (this could result in annual audits) Compile and make audit results available to the public Notify candidates and employees when the employer will use AEDT for assessments and what characteristics and qualifications the AEDT will measure Allow candidates and employees to request an alternative process or accommodation instead of AEDT As an...
by Stephen D. Hans | Mar 14, 2023 | Child Labor Law Violations
FLSA Violations of Child Labor Laws Child labor law violations are the current focus of a Department of Labor (DOL) crackdown. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulates child labor. It the law that sets the standards for restricting the hours children can work based on the school year and type of work. The FLSA is federal law and applies to all states across the nation. Recent Child Labor Law Violations in the News Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. HR Morning reported that Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. was in violation of several aspects of the FLSA. The Wage and Hour Division of the DOL conducted an investigation. Their findings included the following: Company employment of 102 children between the ages of 13 to 17, were working in hazardous occupations. At the Wisconsin location they worked with hazardous chemicals, cleaning meat processing equipment including hack saws, brisket saws and head splitters. At least three minors suffered injuries. The children were working overnight shifts at 13 meat processing facilities in eight states. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. had to pay more than $1.5 million in civil penalties. Urban Air Jacksonville LLC (Florida Trampoline Park) Urban Air Jacksonville LLC is an indoor adventure park in Florida. The company violated child labor laws by permitting 55 minor employees (between the ages of 14 and 15) to work on school nights after 7:00 p.m. Based on a DOL investigation, the company also violated wage and hour laws by deducting break times from some employees’ weekly hours. The company was also in violation of overtime pay when these deductions would have made the employees’ work weeks extend...
by Stephen D. Hans | Mar 7, 2023 | NYC Just Cause Law
What NYC Employers Should Understand About Just Cause The NYC Just Cause Law went into effect in July, 2021 for the fast food industry in the Big Apple. Recently, a case involving a Starbucks worker showed how the law has changed the legal landscape for fast food workers and employers. Details of the Starbuck’s Case and the NYC Just Cause Law Seven months ago, Starbucks fired a worker named Austin Locke at their Queens store. According to an article in Jacobin, https://jacobin.com/2023/02/new-york-city-just-cause-firing-law-at-will-employment-starbucks-union-organizing, Starbucks had targeted Locke for his involvement in a union organizing drive. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was not the agency that obtained his reinstatement. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) brought the lawsuit on his behalf. They argued that his termination had violated the Just Cause Law. Firing him without just cause was illegal for a fast food facility. Note that employers in the NYC fast food industry can no longer fire employees at-will. In Locke’s case the reasons given by Starbucks for his termination were twofold: Falsely reporting workplace violence Missing part of a multipart COVID screening protocol A video exonerated Locke on the first allegation. Evidence regarding the second allegation showed that employees regularly breached the protocol, but he was the only one fired because of it. Other cases brought against NYC employers based on just cause The Just Cause Law along with the Fair Workweek Law (passed in 2017) have resulted in substantial protection for fast-food workers. Statistics show: 230 investigations have examined potential violations The laws have resulted in nearly $27.1 million in restitution and...
by Stephen D. Hans | Feb 26, 2023 | labor & employment attorney
Staying up-to-date with the legality of non-compete clauses The FTC has proposed a rule to ban non-compete clauses. Non-compete clauses have allowed companies to reduce their competition by preventing employees from working at similar companies after leaving their employment. Depending on the wording of the clause, it may prevent independent contractors or employees from even working in the same field within a specified amount of time after leaving the company or project. It may prevent former employers from working within a certain geographic area for a period of time after their employment terminates. It may also prevent former contractors or employees from starting their own company in the same field. Other non-compete clauses require employees to repay the company for training expenses if they terminate within a specified amount of time. The FTC argues that such agreements lower wages for all workers in the particular field, those who signed the clauses along with those who did not. It considers such clauses an unfair method of competition. However, the FTC is asking for the public’s opinion on its proposal. Details of the New Proposed Rule to Ban Non-Compete Clauses The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed banning future non-compete clauses and rescinding existing non-compete clauses based on the following statistics: One in five American workers have signed non-compete clauses (approximately 30 million people) Banning non-compete clauses would end the restriction of better employment opportunities, resulting in an increase in American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year As an employer, do you need legal help with employment contracts? By addressing legal concerns or questions early on, employers...
by Stephen D. Hans | Feb 22, 2023 | labor & employment attorney
Employer awareness of mental health discrimination Lawsuits involving employee mental health discrimination are on the rise and have been since 2018, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In 2020, the EEOC ranked anxiety claims third and depression claims fourth based on the total number of Americans with Disabilities (ADA) claims filed. With the rising number of claims, it is important to have sound legal practices in place for employers to protect their businesses and to prevent mental health discrimination lawsuits. Specific Claims Involving Mental Disability The EEOC filed a complaint in December 2021 on behalf of a chief financial officer’s former employer, Ranew’s Management Co. The claim alleged that the company terminated him based on his mental disability. Allegedly, the CFO suffered from major, severe and recurring depression. His mental health state caused suicidal thoughts and mental disability that harmed his ability to sleep, concentrate, think and work. He informed his employer about his need to take off time from work to receive treatment. After cleared by his doctor to return to work, his employer fired him. Another case recently involved a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of New York. The judge evaluated the same issue in the Zuckerman case. The judge dismissed the employee’s claim, which stated that her anxiety disorder resulted in termination. The judge ruled that the claimant failed to show she in fact had a mental disability. The court noted, “difficulties with sleep and concentration are widespread.” The judge also stated that “many employees are anxious when interacting with their bosses and that many people find certain social settings to be...
