Photo of Margaret Yanulis

Margaret Yanulis

Subscribe to Margaret Yanulis's Posts

Margaret Yanulis is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's New York office.

Contact:Read more about Margaret Yanulis

Beginning on January 1, 2025, all New York employers will be required to provide eligible employees with 20 hours of paid prenatal leave (“Paid Prenatal Leave”) during any 52-week period for health care services during or related to their pregnancy. The law was initially passed in May 2024 by Governor Kathy Hochul, and amends New York Labor Law § 196-b, the state’s Paid Sick and Safe Leave law. On December 2, 2024, the New York Department of Labor (“NYDOL”) released a long-awaited series of FAQs (the “FAQs”) clarifying a number of outstanding questions regarding the law’s application. The law is the first of its kind in the United States, and provides paid, protected leave for pregnant employees separate and apart from other available leave options. Key highlights of the Paid Prenatal Leave law are summarized below.Continue Reading New York Paid Prenatal Leave Begins Next Year – What Employers Need to Know

Washington Governor Jay Inslee recently signed Senate Bill 5935 into law, amending and expanding Washington’s statute restricting the enforceability of noncompetition covenants (Revised Code of Washington 49.2). The amended statute, effective June 6, 2024 and enacted to “facilitat[e] workforce mobility and protect[] employees and independent contractors,” follows a growing trend among states restricting the enforceability of noncompetition covenants and creates additional considerations for employers entering into non-compete agreements with Washington-based employees.Continue Reading Washington’s Amended Non-Compete Law Creates New Considerations for Employers

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decades-old circuit split regarding what amount of harm a plaintiff must demonstrate to bring an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a unified Court ruled that a plaintiff need only show “some”—and not “significant”—harm from an employment decision to plead and prove employment discrimination under Title VII. Before Muldrow, a number of appellate courts dismissed transfer-based Title VII claims unless the plaintiff could show that the transfer resulted in “significant” harm. The Supreme Court rejected that standard in Muldrow, holding that a plaintiff need only show that the transfer resulted in “some harm” with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Supreme Court’s new standard raises fresh considerations for employers making transfer decisions, and may have broader implications beyond the transfer context.Continue Reading Supreme Court Eases Burden for Title VII Plaintiffs Challenging Transfer Decisions