Photo of Eric Raphan

Eric Raphan is a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment practice group and is located in our New York Office.

This week, both houses of the New York state legislature passed a package of amendments (the “Amendments”) to the New York Health and Essential Rights Act (“HERO Act” or the “Act”) designed to clarify, modify, and delay implementation of certain provisions of the Act.
Continue Reading NY HERO Act Requirements Significantly Modified as Amendments Pass New York Legislature

On April 23, 2021, the New York state legislature delivered a copy of the Health and Essential Rights Act (the “HERO Act” or the “Act”) to Governor Andrew Cuomo for
Continue Reading Governor to Consider Significant New Health and Safety Obligations as NY HERO Act Passes State Legislature

On September 28, 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill into law significantly amending the New York City Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (“ESSTA”) in order to better align with New York State’s new paid sick leave law (the “NYS Leave Law”).  Like its state law counterpart, the amendments to ESSTA (the “ESSTA Amendments”) takes effect on September 30, 2020.  As discussed in greater detail below, the ESSTA Amendments: (i) revise the amount of leave that New York City employers are required to provide; (ii) impose new employer reporting requirements; (iii) create new employer reimbursement obligations in connection with requested medical documentation and/or documentation regarding domestic violence; (iv) expand the scope of prohibited retaliation under the law; (v) impose new notice requirements; and (vi) expand enforcement mechanisms.
Continue Reading NYC Employers Take Note: Earned Sick and Safe Time Act Amendments Take Effect September 30, 2020

As we previously reported, on August 3, 2020 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) struck down four provisions of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) regulations interpreting employee leave eligibility and entitlement under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. On September 11, 2020, the DOL issued new regulations (the “Revised Final Rule”) in hopes of clarifying employers’ responsibilities under the FFCRA’s paid leave provisions in light of the District Court’s decision.
Continue Reading DOL Revises FFCRA Regulations in Light of New York Federal Court Decision

On August 3, 2020, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken issued a decision in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., No. 1:20-cv-03020 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020), which vacated several portions of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) regulations concerning the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).
Continue Reading New York Federal Court Vacates Several Portions of DOL Regulations Regarding FFCRA Leave

On March 18, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed an Executive Order (the “March 18 Order”) requiring all “non-essential” New York businesses to reduce their in-person workforce at any work location by 50%.  On March 19, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued another Executive Order (the “March 19 Order”), requiring all “non-essential” New York businesses to reduce their in-person workforce at any work location by 75%.
Continue Reading New York on Pause: Governor Cuomo Orders All Non-Essential Workers to Stay Home

On December 6, 2019, the Second Circuit issued a decision that will have a strong impact on the settlement of wage and hour actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court ruling and held that FLSA settlements pursuant to a Rule 68 offer of judgment do not require court approval. This decision departs from the conventional view that settlements of FLSA claims generally require formal approval from a court or the Department of Labor (DOL) in order to be enforceable.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds That FLSA Settlements Pursuant To An Offer of Judgment Do Not Need Court Approval

On August 12, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S.6577, a bill implementing a series of sweeping changes to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). As we previously reported, S.6577 provides for a number of notable updates to the NYSHRL designed to strengthen state protection for victims of sexual harassment. However, the signing of S.6577 also implements a series of changes that stand to significantly impact employers with respect to all claims of employment discrimination, not just sexual harassment. This post summarizes key changes to the NYSHRL created by S.6577, along with deadlines for employer compliance.
Continue Reading Update: Governor Cuomo Signs Significant Changes to New York Discrimination and Harassment Legislation Into Law – Employer Compliance Required

On March 27, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act designed to amend and strengthen the existing federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The Paycheck Fairness Act, which passed the House by a vote of 242-187 on a largely party-line basis, is sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and would make sweeping changes to existing law.
Continue Reading Equal Pay Act Amendment Passes House of Representatives

On July 2, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued significant pro-employer decisions in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures (Nos. 13-4478-cv, 13-4481-cv) (“Fox”) and Wang v. Hearst Corp. (No. 13-4480-cv) (“Hearst”) that served as a setback for the plaintiffs in both cases.  In both cases, the plaintiffs – unpaid interns who had spent time at Fox Searchlight and Hearst magazines, respectively – alleged that they should have been classified as employees and paid for their time.  As a result, they brought claims for, among other things, unpaid wages on a class-wide basis.  The district court decisions were split.  In Fox, the judge granted summary judgment on the issue that interns were employees and permitted the plaintiffs to proceed on a class and collective basis.  To the contrary, in Hearst, the judge denied summary judgment on the same issue and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed as a class.  On appeal in both cases, the Second Circuit adopted a balancing standard called the “primary beneficiary test” and held that district courts should use this test when analyzing whether an individual should have been classified as an intern or an employee.  The Second Circuit also held that the proposed classes of interns in both cases failed to satisfy the requisite standards in order to proceed on a class-wide basis.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Court of Appeals Adopts “Primary Beneficiary Test” and Provides Guidance on the Unpaid Intern Question