Search form

New York Employers Must Issue First Annual Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice in January 2012

By Felice B. Ekelman, Jeffrey W. Brecher, Richard I. Greenberg, Jonathan M. Kozak, Noel P. Tripp and Craig S. Roberts
  • December 8, 2011

New York’s landmark Wage Theft Prevention Act requires employers to issue to all New York employees an annual notice complying with the requirements of New York Labor Law § 195 (as amended by the Act).  The statute became effective in April 2011 and the first annual notice must be provided prior to February 1, 2012.  The notice obligations are discussed in our article, New York Wage Theft Prevention Act Update: State DOL Issues Model Forms and Guidance.  Notice can be provided electronically as long as certain requirements are met.

While the law does not dictate the form of notice, the New York State Department of Labor has provided sample forms.  In addition to English, the NYSDOL has provided sample forms in other languages, consistent with the requirement that the notice be provided in English and in the employee’s “primary language.”  Failure to provide the annual notice constitutes a violation the Wage Theft Act (Section 198(1-b)) and can carry a penalty of “fifty dollars for each work week that the violations occurred or continue to occur,” among other potential remedies.

Large employers, and employers with a large virtual or remote segment in their workforce, have been wrestling with creating a compliant notice program under the Act.  The absence of clear guidance regarding certain provisions and requirements makes this task more difficult.

And for employers who also have operations in California, the state has adopted a law nearly identical to New York’s.  The California Wage Theft Prevention Act, effective January 1, 2012, increases the penalties available under existing provisions of the California Labor Code, and adds a detailed notice requirement to employees, echoing the requirements imposed on New York employers by N.Y. Labor Law § 195.  For more information on the California Wage Theft Prevention Act, see California Enacts Eerily Familiar "Wage Theft Prevention Act".

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with their compliance efforts.

©2011 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

January 10, 2017

2017: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 10, 2017

An executive summary of recent changes in workplace law and a look ahead to 2017. Read More

January 10, 2017

Ohio Limits Local Workplace Laws, Expands Concealed Carry Rights of Licensed Gun Holders

January 10, 2017

A new Ohio law mandates uniformity of laws across the state affecting wage-hour, paid sick and safe leave and other fringe benefits, and scheduling of employee work hours. Senate Bill 331 expressly prohibits cities and counties from adopting laws in these areas that differ from those enacted at the state and federal level. Senate Bill... Read More

January 10, 2017

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Service Advisors Eligible for Overtime, Setting Up Second Potential Trip to Supreme Court

January 10, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 granted certiorari in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro to resolve a circuit split regarding whether “service advisors” at automobile dealerships are exempt from receiving overtime under the Fair Labor Standard Act pursuant to an exemption for any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily... Read More

Related Practices