Search form

New York State Clarifies Rights of Working Mothers

By Richard I. Greenberg, Daniel J. Jacobs, Susan M. Corcoran and Christopher M. Valentino
  • November 30, 2015

New York State has amended its Public Health Law through enactment of two pieces of legislation relating to breastfeeding and expression of breast milk. The legislation includes specific provisions applicable to employers.

The first of the two bills, effective immediately, establishes the right to breastfeed a baby at an employee’s place of employment in an environment that does not discourage breastfeeding or the provision of breast milk. The bill also amends the Public Health Law to empower the commissioner to conduct educational activities to encourage and facilitate employers to establish such workplace environments. The legislation envisions environments that may include sanitary locations for breastfeeding and availability of refrigerators for storage of breast milk. It is unclear whether employers now have some affirmative obligations to allow an employee who is nursing to bring her child to work.

Additionally, unlike the second bill, discussed below, and existing New York Labor Law limiting breastfeeding rights to up to three years following childbirth, this bill does not establish a fixed time limit. Accordingly, it is unclear whether employers have any affirmative obligations beyond the three-year period after childbirth.

The second bill, effective January 1, 2016, reaffirms existing rights and obligations established by the New York Labor Law providing for employees’ rights to reasonable unpaid breaks to express breast milk at work for up to three years following childbirth. It also specifically provides that such rights include the right to pump breast milk. Since the new legislation does not affirmatively state that pumping must be for the employee’s nursing child, an argument can be made that an employee has the right to pump for other reasons, such as to act as a wet nurse.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with these and other workplace requirements.

©2015 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

June 12, 2018

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects an Interpretation of ‘Health Insurance’ that Would Nullify State Wage System

June 12, 2018

In the last of a series of decisions reached by the Nevada Supreme Court interpreting the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution, the Court concluded that an employer may pay the lower of the state’s two-tier minimum wage “if the employer offers health insurance at a cost to the employer of the equivalent of at least... Read More

June 7, 2018

Number of Contingent Workers Inches Higher, DOL Survey Finds

June 7, 2018

The Department of Labor (DOL) has confirmed the gig economy is alive and well, but the number of workers has increased only slightly in the past decade. The DOL released its much-anticipated “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements Survey” report on June 7, 2018. The number of U.S. workers classified as “contingent” (... Read More

May 7, 2018

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal.... Read More

Related Practices