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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More

Related Practices