Enacts the anti-waiver of employment rights act

• Democratic6

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Ramos says this is needed

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.

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.