Search form

New York State Regulations Governing Payroll Debit Cards (Scheduled to Become Effective March 7) Held Invalid and Revoked

By Jeffrey W. Brecher, Richard I. Greenberg, Daniel J. Jacobs, Jonathan M. Kozak, Vincent E. Polsinelli and Noel P. Tripp
  • February 17, 2017

The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) issued final regulations in September 2016, significantly restricting the use of payroll debit cards and imposing disclosure and consent requirements for direct deposit. The regulations (12 NYCRR §192) were to become effective on March 7, 2017. However, in a February 16, 2017, decision, the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) held the regulations “invalid” and “revoked.” “We find the regulations are invalid because they exceed [the NYS Commissioner’s] rulemaking authority,” the IBA held.   

In striking down the regulations, the IBA noted that at least eight bills on payroll debit cards had been introduced in the New York State legislature in recent years, and none of the bills were enacted. “The legislature’s failure to amend the statute demonstrates their satisfaction with the current statutory language or their inability to reach consensus on the manner in which payroll debit cards should be regulated under the Labor Law, if at all,” the IBA found. The IBA also found the regulations infringed on banking regulations that set fees banks may charge and that the NYSDOL, by also seeking to regulate such fees, overstepped its jurisdiction. The NYSDOL has 60 days to appeal the decision. 

While the IBA’s analysis was focused on the proposed provisions regulating payroll debit cards, the regulations also established new requirements regarding use of direct deposit. Although the provisions regarding direct deposit were not addressed by the IBA, the IBA Order revokes the entire regulation (12 NYCRR §192).

The regulations, which were scheduled to go into effect March 7, 2017, would have imposed greater obligations on New York employers if they wished to offer the option of wage payment through payroll debit cards and/or direct deposit including: (i) providing a detailed written notice to employees; and (ii) obtaining voluntary consent prior to payment by either of these methods. (For details, see our article, New Regulation Restricts New York Employers Seeking to Pay Wages by Direct Deposit, Payroll Debit Cards.)

In anticipation of the effective date, the NYSDOL issued two model notice and consent templates, one for payroll debit cards and the other for direct deposit.

Under the regulation, previously signed direct deposit and payroll debit cards consent forms would remain valid, but employers would still need to provide written notice that complies with the regulation before March 7, 2017, including notification of the right to withdraw consent.

Beyond the notice and consent requirements, the additional restrictions applicable to using payroll debit cards included:

(i) imposition of a seven business day waiting period from execution of consent to initial payment by means of payroll debit card;

(ii) a prohibition on a laundry list of potential fees;

(iii) requiring that wages paid by payroll debit card may not be linked to any form of credit;

(iv) a prohibition on employers passing on costs associated with payroll debit card accounts or otherwise receiving kickbacks from third parties associated with payroll debit card programs;

(v) a prohibition on expiration of wages;

(vi) an additional notice requirement if there are changes in the terms and conditions of the card accounts or fees charged to employees; and

(vii) a requirement that union approval be obtained for unionized employees.

Separately, the NYSDOL issued regulations effective February 1, 2017, implementing amendments to the New York equal pay law that made it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees from inquiring about, discussing or disclosing their wages or the wages of other employees. For additional information on this subject, see our blog post, NYSDOL Adopts Regulations Implementing State Law Limiting Employer’s Right to Restrict Employee Discussion Regarding Wages.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions regarding these regulations or for assistance in achieving compliance with applicable requirements.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 7, 2017

Context Matters: Mortgage Underwriters Don’t Meet FLSA’s Administrative Exemption, Ninth Circuit Concludes

July 7, 2017

Mortgage underwriters do not qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s administrative exemption because they are more appropriately characterized as “production” employees, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11950 (9th Cir. July 5, 2017). In so... Read More

July 6, 2017

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update - Summer 2017

July 6, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court: Plaintiffs May Not Voluntarily Dismiss Case to Appeal Class Certification Decision Curbing a litigation tactic used by class action plaintiffs, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such plaintiffs may not voluntarily dismiss their claims upon receiving an adverse class certification decision and subsequently invoke 28... Read More

June 30, 2017

DOL Will Issue New Rule to Set Salary for White Collar Exemptions, But Asks Fifth Circuit to Reverse District Court Order Granting Nationwide Preliminary Injunction

June 30, 2017

The government has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Texas District Court Judge who issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Labor’s Final Rule which would have more than doubled the required salary level for the “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On... Read More

Related Practices