by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 15, 2016 | Employment Law, Wage and Hour
A minimum wage increase of $8.75 to $9.00 went into effect in New York on December 31, 2015. For employers, it obviously means you must pay higher wages to all employees who were receiving minimum wages. However, that’s not the only factor you must consider. The New York Department of Labor released new posting required for the wage increase on December 31, 2015. GovDocs offers the posting as part of its New York Post Compliance Package In fact, businesses must display posters not just for minimum wages. Other employment laws also require postings. Here is the complete list: Minimum Wage Information Discrimination Laws Governing the Employment of Minors (Child Labor) Time Allowed To Vote Fringe Benefits Deduction from Wages Tip Appropriation No Smoking New York Correction Law Article 23-A New York Correction Law Article 23-A is NY Law that prohibits employers from discriminating against persons who were convicted of one or more criminal offenses. You may not be aware of it, but if you deny employment to someone who was previously convicted of a crime, you must provide the person with a written statement at the time you deny the employment or license. Let’s face it. In our society today, business owners must know about and comply with many laws and regulations just in order to run a business. It’s vital for you to address legal factors and work with an employment law attorney who can help you put measures in place. Failing to adhere to the law and stay in compliance with regulations can result in heavy fines. At Stephen Hans & Associates, our attorneys offer human resources...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 15, 2015 | Employment Law, Wage and Hour
Minimum wage increases took effect on December 31, 2014, raising the New York minimum wage from $8.00 to $8.75 per hour for employees who work based on hourly wages. By the way, another minimum wage increase also occurs approximately a year from now, on December 31, 2015, raising hourly wages to $9.00 per hour. According to the New York Department of Labor , most employees working for restaurants or hotels in New York State are covered by the wage increase. However, the hourly wage increase does not apply to tipped employees, such as servers, persons busing tables or hotel bellhops. Even so, their overtime rates are affected and must increase when they work over 40 hours per week or work days with spreads over 10 hours for that day. The maximum tip credits employers can claim also increased by the same amount that minimum wages increased, which would be $.75 beginning 2015 and $.025 beginning 2016. Tip credits are $3.75 in 2015 and $4.00 in 2016. Non-overtime hourly wages along with credits for meals and lodging did not increase. Pay increases apply for tipped employee’s call-in pay and uniform maintenance pay. In addition, employers must pay the difference for any tipped employee’s hourly pay combined with tips that does not add up to the minimum wage figure. It is important to comply with changes in wage and hour laws. Business owners who fail to do so often find themselves embroiled in disputes and subject to lawsuits. Our employment defense attorneys at Stephen Hans & Associates offer employers decades of legal experience from protecting our clients’ rights in wage and...
by Stephen D. Hans | Oct 30, 2014 | Employment Law
Author: Stephen D.Hans Juggling compliance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and profitability is a problem many employers in the restaurant industry face today. Under the ACA, companies with 50 or more full-time employees must either pay for their full-time employees’ health care coverage or pay penalties. Penalties go into effect in 2015 or 2016, depending on company size. For many years, the IRS code has defined a full-time employee as one who works 40 hours a week. In contrast, the ACA defines a full-time employee as an employee who works 30 hours a week. The ACA outlines calculations for determining whether your company is an “applicable large employer” and figuring out how many full-time employees you have. It requires taking the total hours worked by all employees per month and dividing the total by 120. The 120 figure represents four 30 hour work weeks. For example, say total monthly work hours are 6,000. When divided by 120, you get 50 and that would mean you have 50 full-time employees, working 30 hour work weeks. However, what if some of your employees are working 40 hours a week? The calculation indicates you have 50 full-time workers, but you do not. Perhaps the rest of your employees work under 30 hours a week. The question then arises, which workers aside from those working 40 hours a week are entitled to health insurance coverage? The math does not align with 40 hour work weeks. The new 30 hour work week requirement is problematic for many employers, causing them to restructure their work forces based on the full-time definition of 30 hours....
by Stephen D. Hans | Oct 16, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Law
Author: Stephen Hans Business owners typically look from an employer’s perspective and fire employees who cannot do the job. For the most part, this line of reasoning is valid and especially if you have at-will employment, where the employer has the right to terminate an employee for any reason whatsoever. However, there are legal exceptions to the “whatsoever” conditions of at-will employment, and discrimination underpins the majority of these exceptions. Firing an employee or not hiring an employee because of disability is a form of discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide: Equal opportunity in selecting, testing and hiring qualified applicants with disabilities Job accommodation for applicants and workers with disabilities when such accommodations would not impose “undue hardship” Equal opportunity in promotions and benefits Certainly, accommodating a worker who has a disability is harder than managing an employee who has no disability. Even so, this fact does not constitute undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is bringing a lawsuit against Harrison Poultry and this lawsuit serves as a recent example of disability discrimination. The EEOC determined that Harrison Poultry discriminated against an employee with a disability who was on an approved leave. A physician diagnosed the employee with emphysema. Instead of granting an accommodation to the employee who requested a 12 day extension to his vacation so he could comply with doctor’s orders, the company fired him. On behalf of the worker, the EEOC first attempted to settle with Harrison Poultry, but when unable to reach a settlement, the EEOC filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jul 24, 2014 | Court Decisions, Employment Law
Awhile back we published a blog post that discussed New York City’s ban on soda sizes that were 16 ounces or greater. Former Mayor, Michael Bloomberg proposed the ban to the City Council and sent it to the Board of Health, which unanimously approved the ban in September 2012. However, the ban subsequently became subject to litigation when theaters, restaurant owners and beverage companies brought lawsuits. The lawsuits went through several judicial levels before arriving at the NY State Supreme Court. According to Bloomberg News, the New York State Supreme Court recently struck down the rule, adjudicating that it was “arbitrary and capricious.” The highest court in the state found that the only body with authority to engage in policy-making was the state legislature and it had not legislated such a rule. The Board of Health overstepped its authority, which is to regulate and not engage in policy-making. It derives its authority from the state legislature, not the New York City Council. In terms of public survey, Rasmussen Reports indicated that 63 percent of adults surveyed opposed the local soda ban and 19 percent supported it and 19 percent were undecided. The New York Post reported on the issue as well and stated that after New York City passed the ban, beverage companies began releasing smaller cans of beverages that were 7.5 ounces to give the public a greater freedom of choice. Stephan Hans & Associates is a long-established employment litigation firm located in Long Island City, Queens that has served clients for more than three decades in the New York City area, including Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Long...
by Stephen D. Hans | Feb 28, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Law
A federal district court has ruled that Wisconsin restaurant Sparx must pay back pay and interest to a former employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about a racist display in the workplace. The restaurant is on the hook for more than $56,000 and its owner and other managers were ordered to participate in anti-discrimination training. The former employee, Dion Miller claimed that he was fired because he complained about an offensive display in the restaurant—which included a dollar bill with a noose around George Washington’s neck, drawings of a man on horseback and a hooded figure with “KKK” written on his hood. Within three weeks of lodging the complaint, Mr. Miller, who was a cook, was fired. In September 2013 the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and awarded $15,000 in damages for emotional distress to Mr. Miller. Subsequently, Judge Barbara B. Crabb rejected a motion from Sparx to set aside the verdict, and awarded Mr. Miller back pay and interest of more than $41,000. The court also entered a three-year injunction, enjoining the defendants from: -Retaliatory firings for complaints about racially offensive postings in the workplace -Failing to adopt policies that explicitly prohibit unlawful actions under Title VII -Failing to adopt an investigative process for discrimination claims -Failing to provide annual training to employees regarding Title VII Protect your company by adopting firm anti-discrimination policies To avoid liability for discrimination claims from employees, you must adopt firm anti-discrimination policies that comply with state and federal law. Your policies should be clearly written and provided to all employees. You must also have a complaint process in...
