New York City Council Approves Amendments to Salary Transparency Law; New Date for Compliance Now November 1, Among Other Changes

[ad_1]

On April 28, 2022, the New York City Council (the “Council”) passed Int. 134, an amendment to New York City’s Wage Transparency Law (the “Salary Transparency Law” or “STL”) that finalized a variety of sizeable modifications to its specifications.  As we previously reported, the Council has been taking into consideration Int. 134 in different kinds given that March 24, 2022.  The authentic version of Int. 134, which provided additional major protections for companies, unsuccessful to achieve traction.  Following discussions with pay back fairness advocates and the compact enterprise community, Int. 134’s sponsors declared modifications to Int. 134 built to characterize a compromise proposal.  That model of Int. 134 passed, and will be efficient promptly if signed by Mayor Eric Adams.

Int. 134 would make a number of vital adjustments to the Wage Transparency Legislation, which are summarized below.

Day for Compliance Now November 1, 2022

As initially drafted, the Wage Transparency Legislation amended the New York Town Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) to have to have New York City businesses with four or additional staff members (and at minimum one who performs in New York Town) to start which includes the least and maximum salary assortment in any interior or external ad for a “job, promotion, or transfer opportunity” on Might 15, 2022.  Int. 134 rolls back again that day for compliance to November 1, 2022, giving employers more time to prepare.

Both Yearly Salaries and Hourly Wages Protected

The initial variation of the STL essential businesses to provide a position’s “minimum and greatest wage.”  Int. 134 clarifies that employers should articulate “the least and maximum annual salary or hourly wage,” and preserves the STL’s necessity that the assortment will have to encompass what the employer “in great faith thinks at the time of the publishing it would spend for the advertised work, marketing or transfer prospect.”

Careers That “Cannot or Will Not Be Performed” in NYC Excluded From Coverage

As penned, the Salary Transparency Law used to all work postings created by a protected employer.  Pre-amendment steering issued by the New York City Fee on Human Legal rights (the “Commission”) stated that the STL applied to positions “that can or will be executed, in entire or in aspect, in New York City, whether or not from an business, in the area, or remotely from the employee’s household.” (emphasis additional).  In its primary iteration, Int. 134 proposed limiting the STL’s scope to roles that were “not expected to be carried out in New York” and excluded typical phone calls for apps that did not specify a position from protection, though neither limitation survived.  As passed, Int. 134 incorporates and modifies the Commission’s advice, and expressly excludes from the STL’s coverage “positions that cannot or will not be performed, at the very least in portion, in the metropolis of New York.”

As a result, New York Metropolis employers do not appear to be required to involve wage ranges in postings for positions that will definitively not be carried out in New York Metropolis, these types of as place of work-based mostly roles positioned outside the five boroughs.  For instance, a New York Town employer hiring for an in-human being part in its satellite business in Chicago would likely not be needed to include a pay variety in that ad.  However, commercials for completely remote positions will be lined, as they could theoretically be stuffed by an worker who lives in New York Metropolis.  Likewise, positions that demand periodic business attendance but could even now perhaps be stuffed by another person who life in New York Metropolis (e.g., mostly remote positions that demand occasional attendance at an employer’s offices for meetings, or hybrid positions that require semi-normal attendance at an workplace in driving length of New York Town) also look to be lined.  Additional guidance on the scope of this carve-out is expected.

Private Right of Motion Sharply Curtailed

Importantly, Int. 134 offers considerable protections to companies towards pointless or opportunistic litigation.  The Salary Transparency Law gives a non-public suitable of motion for folks aggrieved by violations of the legislation, and originally contained no limits.  As a result, any applicant who encountered a non-compliant position posting could have pursued a assert versus the publishing employer.  In response to concerns from the enterprise local community, Int. 134 boundaries that non-public appropriate of motion to a coated employer’s present employees, who may well bring claims “in relation to an advertisement by their employer for a work, marketing, or transfer chance with this kind of employer.”  However, the Fee might nonetheless pursue claims towards non-compliant businesses and seek out fines and civil penalties in all situation.

No Penalty for First-Time Healed Violations

Violations of the Salary Transparency Law may perhaps end result in civil penalties up to $250,000, which is the maximum penalty contemplated less than the NYCHRL.  Int. 134 sets civil penalty for a very first-time violation at $, provided that the cited employer proves to the Commission that the violation has been cured to the Commission’s fulfillment inside thirty (30) times of service of a criticism from the Commission.  The employer’s proof of cure may perhaps be submitted electronically or in person, and an employer may well find evaluate of any Commission perseverance that a evidence of get rid of was not submitted in fifteen (15) times of receipt of written see of the resolve.

Assuming Mayor Adams symptoms Int. 134, additional guidance from the Fee concerning the scope and applicability of the STL is envisioned prior to its new November 1, 2022 powerful day.  We will continue on to observe any new developments and provide updates as they become accessible.

[ad_2]

Source backlink