BILL NUMBER: S4424A
SPONSOR: RAMOS
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the labor law and the executive law, in relation to
enacting the "anti-waiver of employment rights act"
 
PURPOSE:
To reaffirm and clarify for the courts that the protections of the New
York Labor Law and the New York State Human Rights Law are mandatory and
non-waivable through private agreement.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
This legislation amends the Labor Law and Human Rights Law by adding new
sections stating that pre-dispute contractual waivers or limits on an
employee's substantive or procedural rights, remedies, or claims under
these statutes are not valid, and that post-dispute waivers are also
invalid unless made in the context of a settlement of a bona fide
dispute or a severance agreement.
Section 1 States the bill's title, the "Anti-Waiver of Employment Rights
Act." Section 2 Summarizes legislative findings.
Section 3 Amends Article 7 of the Labor Law by adding a new section
219-e stating that pre-dispute contractual waivers or limits on an
employee's substantive or procedural rights, remedies, or claims under
these statutes are not valid, and that post-dispute waivers are invalid
unless made in the context of a settlement of a bona fide dispute or a
severance agreement, except where the application of this section would
be preempted by federal law.
Section 4 Amends Article 15 of the Executive Law by adding a new section
302 stating that pre-dispute contractual waivers or limits on an employ-
ee's substantive or procedural rights, remedies, or claims under these
statutes are not valid, and that post-dispute waivers are invalid unless
made in the context of a settlement of a bona fide dispute or a sever-
ance agreement, except where the application of this section would be
preempted by federal law.
Section 5 States that the Act shall take effect immediately. The
A-print includes CBA carveout language to avoid nullifying CBA grievance
arbitration processes.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
It has always been the Legislature's intention that the rights provided
under the labor law and the human rights law be mandatory and non-waiva-
ble through private agreement, and that workers be permitted to enforce
these rights collectively, including through Article 9 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules. However, some courts have misconstrued these
statutes as permitting waivers of these statutory rights.
Perhaps most egregiously, many courts have misconstrued these statutes
as permitting employers to shorten employees' statutes of limitations to
bring claims under the Labor Law and the Human Rights Law-even when such
provisions are included in employment applications and employees unques-
tionably have no opportunity to negotiate them. See, e.g., Hunt v. Raym-
our & Flanigan, 105 A.D.3d 1005 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2013) (enforcing
contract provision that limited statute of limitations to bring any
employment claim to six months, and dismissing State Human Rights Law
claims); Ortegas v. G4S Secure Sols. Inc., 65 N.Y.S.3d 693, 693 (App.
Div. 1st Dep't 2017) (same); Cayetano v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 19 Civ.
10619 (AT), 2022 WL 2467735, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2022) (same);
Keller v. About, Inc., No. 21-CV-228 (JMF), 2021 WL 1783522, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021) (holding that shortening of statutes of limita-
tions was permissible for claims including those brought under the Labor
Law and Human Rights Law); Combs v. Same Day Delivery Inc., No.
1:22-cv-00520-MKV, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167954, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Sep.
20, 2023) (denying motion to modify arbitration award in which arbitra-
tor permitted shortening of statute of limitations for overtime claims
under the Labor Law). New York City recently amended its Human Rights
Law to prohibit such contractual provisions shortening statutes of limi-
tations for City Human Rights Law claims, in response to cases such as
these. See NYC Adrnin Code § 805(2)(d-1).
Courts have also misconstrued these statutes to permit employees to
waive their rights to enforce their rights collectively as part of a
class action-even when there is no arbitration provision that would
purport to require, from a federal law perspective, enforcement of that
waiver. See, e.g., Lee v. Insomnia Cookies LLC, No. 23-CV-6321-FPG,
2024 WL 1051954, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2024) (enforcing class action
waiver and dismissing class action claims, without analyzing New York
Labor Law and citing only arbitration-related decisions, holding that "a
contractual proscription against class actions, such as contained in the
agreements, is neither unconscionable nor violative of public policy.").
This bill clarifies for the courts once and for all that the Labor Law
and the Human Rights Law's provisions are not waivable by private agree-
ment, and that such waivers have been and are henceforth invalid.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New Bill
 
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately