Relates to granting employees access to personnel records

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Andrew Gounardes says this is needed

This bill, modeled after Massachusetts' Personnel Record Law, would allow employees a fair opportunity to access their personnel records at least twice per year at all worksites in New York State. Employers would need to furnish records within five business days of receiving a written request from an employee and notify employees when negative information affecting qualification for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility that an employee will be subject to disciplinary action is filed against them. Employees would also be able to submit a written statement into their personnel file if they disagree with its content, and to pursue an action for injunctive relief to remove false information. The Attorney General could bring an action, at their discretion, against violators of the bill and subject them to a fine between $500 and $2,500. Individual employees who face illegal discrimination or retaliation for exercising their rights under the statute may also bring a claim. This bill seeks to emulate Massachusetts in recognizing the basic right of employees to know what kind of reports are being officially filed about them and how this will impact their future employment prospects. It aims to inspire an open and transparent dialogue between employees and their supervisors while providing some recourse for employees to remove knowingly false or defamatory statements from their records. In providing a state right of action, this bill will also deter retaliatory use of personnel records to, for example, discredit or undermine employ- ees who may later come into conflict with their employers. The legisla- ture must work to safeguard basic labor rights while ensuring that personnel records are utilized only for their original and intended purpose: as a tool to track and improve employee performance and not a weapon to discredit current or former employees in the court of public opinion.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.